Catégories
Membres Communiqué de presse

2021 CCE Awards Lifetime Award and Career Award Announcement

Prix pour une carrière exceptionnelle et pour l’œuvre d’une vie — 2021 Communiqué

Prix d’excellence soulignant l’œuvre d’une vie

Michel Arcand, CCE

2021 CCE Awards Michel Arcand, CCE Lifetime Achievement Recipient

Le CCE est heureux de faire l’annonce du récipiendaire du Prix d’excellence soulignant l’œuvre d’une vie pour l’année 2021 : Michel Arcand, CCE. Pendant plus de 40 ans, Michel a fait évoluer l’art du montage au Canada et dans le monde. Il a contribué sans relâche à bâtir la communauté du montage en tant que mentor et son rôle de défenseur des monteurs et monteuses est incommensurable. Le CCE présentera fièrement cet honneur à Michel, virtuellement, à la 11e remise des prix CCE, le 3 juin 2021.

Michel Arcand œuvre comme monteur depuis plus de quarante ans et il occupe une place unique au sein de la communauté des artisans et professionnels du cinéma d’ici qu’il a vu naître, grandir et s’affirmer.

Il a accompagné et accompagne encore le travail de nos plus grands cinéastes, les Léa Pool, Jean-Claude Lauzon, Pierre Falardeau, Robert Ménard, Charles Binamé, Chloé Robichaud, Sébastien Pilote pour ne nommer que ceux-là.

Michel Arcand fait partie de ce groupe de créateurs et d’artisans de haut niveau dont la réputation a traversé les frontières et son talent a été mis à contribution dans des productions internationales d’envergure. Des films comme TOMORROW NEVER DIES : JAMES BOND #18, SUNSHINE ou THE SIXTH DAY ont été vus par des centaines de milliers de spectateurs à travers le monde.

Généreux de son temps et de son incomparable expérience, il est membre fondateur du Comité des treize, un regroupement indépendant de monteurs qui se donnent pour mission de créer des liens entre monteurs de tous horizons pour faire connaître le métier et de lui redonner ses lettres de noblesse.

Pigiste depuis toujours, il est soucieux des conditions dans lesquelles lui-même et ses pairs exercent leur métier. Cette volonté d’appuyer autrement sa collectivité l’a mené à siéger au conseil d’administration de l’Académie canadienne du cinéma. Puis de 2006 à aujourd’hui, il siège à un conseil d’administration de l’Association québécoise des techniciens de l’image et du son (AQTIS section locale 514 de IATSE).

Homme de principes, il est attaché aux valeurs collectives et à l’équité entre toutes les fonctions essentielles à la réalisation d’une œuvre. Il milite en faveur d’une organisation forte et unifiante pour les représenter et assurer l’investissement nécessaire dans le perfectionnement professionnel et la formation de la relève.

Prix pour une carrière exceptionnelle

Jane Tattersall

2021 CCE Awards Jane Tattersall Career Achievement Recipient

Le CCE est fier d’annoncer que la récipiendaire du prix pour une carrière exceptionnelle pour l’année 2021 est Jane Tattersall. Ce prix est remis à une personne qui ne travaille pas en montage mais qui a été d’un grand soutien aux monteur.euse.s canadien.ne.s et à la profession en général tout au long de sa carrière. Jane a été un pilier pour l’industrie de la postproduction au Canada pendant plus de 30 ans. Son soutien indéfectible envers les réalisateur.trice.s canadien.ne.s, depuis nos talents les plus affirmés jusqu’aux espoirs les plus prometteurs, a permis à notre industrie de connaître un essor incroyable. Le CCE présentera fièrement cet honneur à Jane, virtuellement, à la 11e remise des prix CCE, le 3 juin 2021.

C’est grâce à un orage que la carrière en son de Jane Tattersall est née. Diplômée de l’université Queen’s (en philosophie), son premier emploi en cinéma a été comme recherchiste/script-éditrice sur une série documentaire pour BBC/TVO. Quand le monteur a ajouté un grondement de tonnerre à des images un peu banales d’un beau paysage, ce fut — littéralement — le coup de foudre.

Si vous demandez à Jane ce qui a pu contribuer à son succès des 30 dernières années, elle en attribuera le mérite à la chance d’avoir été mentorée par les meilleur.e.s monteur.euse.s sonores et mixeur.euse.s du monde du cinéma. De grand.e.s réalisateur.trice.s comme Jaco van Dormael, Bill Forsyth, Deepa Mehta, David Cronenberg et Istvan Szabo ont contribué à son éducation.

Jane a bâti des relations avec des réalisateur.trice.s canadien.ne.s comme Clement Virgo, Sarah Polley, Richie Mehta et Mike McGowan. La passion de Jane pour le son et pour l’excellence a aidé cette nouvelle génération de réalisateur.trice.s à prendre d’assaut les Oscars et les festivals du monde entier, dont Cannes et Toronto.

Jane a été amenée à travailler bien au-delà de nos frontières, avec des passages à Berlin, Bruxelles, Budapest, Londres, Los Angeles, Skywalker et New York. Les collaborations, les nominations et les prix ont suivi, et Jane compte maintenant plus de 170 mentions au générique (cinéma et télévision) et plus de 100 nominations et prix. Parmi ses projets les plus récents en supervision sonore, on compte LA SERVANTE ÉCARLATE, THE NORTH WATER et 13 MINUTES.

Catégories
Membres

ACE Eddie Award Tickets – Discount for CCE Members

This content is for members only.
Devenez membre
Already a member? Nom d?utilisateur
Catégories
Membres Événements passés

En conversation avec Jenypher Fisher, CCE, Kelly Morris, CCE et Tim Wanlin, CCE

En conversation avec Jenypher Fisher, CCE, Kelly Morris, CCE et Tim Wanlin, CCE
le 16 mars 2021

Cet événement a eu lieu le 16 mars 2021

Presented in English / Conférence en anglais

Joignez-vous à nous le 16 mars prochain pour une conversation avec Jenypher Fisher, CCE, Kelly Morris, CCE et Tim Wanlin, CCE. Jenypher Fisher, CCE (LES MÉCANOS DE RUST VALLEY), Kelly Morris, CCE (LA ROUTE DE L’ENFER) et Tim Wanlin CCE (HEAVY RESCUE : SECOURS EXTRÊME) sont des monteur.euse.s vancouvérois.e.s d’expérience en matière de télé-réalité. Il et elles vont discuter de leur vaste connaissance du montage en divertissement factuel, de l’importance de trouver la véracité et le langage d’une histoire ainsi qu’une séquence d’ouverture forte et déterminante pour guider le public vers une aventure haute en émotions.

L’événement sera modéré par la créatrice, productrice, réalisatrice et scénariste Kelly McClughan.

La biographie suivante est uniquement rédigée dans la langue de présentation.

Kelly McClughanA passion for factual story-telling and exploration has led me to some of the most remote and intriguing places on earth. I care about getting it right, thrive in challenging environments, and have successfully filmed in traditionally difficult to access communities. As a showrunner, producer, director and writer, I’ve created thousands of hours of factual television for Canadian, US and international markets, and am frequently consulted to help develop, shape and pitch TV projects. An extensive background in journalism has equipped me to apply my skills across multiple genres. As VP Production for Canadian factual producer Great Pacific Media from 2014-2019, I was involved in all aspects of pre-production, production and post, including hands-on story crafting, content oversight and development.

Jenypher Fisher, CCEThrough hard work and determination, Editor Jenypher Fisher has developed a unique style, rivalled only by her keen sense of story and humour. Born and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, for the past 20 years Jenypher has been responsible for crafting a wide and varied array of Canada’s unscripted series. Projects include RUST VALLEY RESTORERS, WILD BEAR RESCUE, ICE PILOTS, THE BACHELOR CANADA, JADE FEVER, YUKON GOLD, THIS IS HIGH SCHOOL, QUEEN OF THE OIL PATCH, THE NATURE OF THINGS, ER: LIFE & DEATH AT VGH, PARAMEDICS: LIFE ON THE LINE & EXPECTING!

Kelly Morris, CCEKelly Morris CCE, is a Vancouver Based film and television editor and former president of the Canadian Cinema Editors, best known for his body of work in documentary and as senior editor for factual series. He has a passion for feature length film, investigative journalism and gritty reality. Series of note that he has worked on include Discovery Channel’s HIGHWAY THRU HELL, JADE FEVER and JETSTREAM, CBC’s HIGH ARCTIC HAULERS and investigative journalism series THE FIFTH ESTATE, natural history series BBC NATURAL WORLDLAND NAT GEO WILD, in addition to a wide breadth of documentary films, the most recent being Citizen Bio for Showtime. Shows he has worked on have received accolades including winner of the duPont-Columbia University Award for Broadcast Journalism (NUCLEAR JIHAD), a Sundance Grand Jury Prize Nomination (SEX: THE ANNABEL CHONG STORY), Gemini (THE FIFTH ESTATE) and CCE (A WOLD CALLED STORM) award nominations for Best Picture Editing.

Tim Wanlin, CCETim Wanlin is based in Vancouver where he has been editing for the last thirty years. During that time his focus has been to seek out projects that allow him to draw out the strongest story, both visually and narratively. He has amassed over seventy documentary credits. Highlights include CTV’s Gemini Award winning, PEACE WARRIOR, WHEN THE DEVIL KNOCKS, which premiered in the 2010 Vancouver Film Festival and CBC’s Canadian Screen Award winning, WILD CANADIAN YEAR. More recently, while continuing to follow his passion for documentaries, Tim is busy with unscripted series work including BORDER SECURITY, JADE FEVER and his current project, HEAVY RESCUE: 401.

In Conversation with Jenypher Fisher, CCE, Kelly Morris, CCE and Tim Wanlin, CCE

Merci à nos commanditaires

À propos de l'événement

mars 2021

1700h HNP

en ligne

Catégories
Articles

Congratulations: Royal Television Society Award Winner 2021

Royal Television Society Award Winner 2020

Congratulations to Pia Di Ciaula who wins the award for Editing in Drama for #Quiz, which judges said was ?smart, confident and cleverly balanced? #RTSAwards

Congratulations to Pia Di Ciaula, CCE, who won a Royal Television Society Award 2020!

Editing in Drama

Pia Di Ciaula, CCE

Quiz

?Smart, confident and cleverly balanced?
#RTSAwards

Catégories
Communiqué de presse

EditCon 2021

EditCon 2021

PUBLIÉ le 18 décembre 2020 à 9h

Un monde, et une industrie en mutation

Les Monteurs et Monteuses de cinéma canadien sont heureux.euses de présenter l’EDITCON 2021, la quatrième conférence annuelle sur l’art du montage, qui se tiendra en ligne les samedi et dimanche 20 et 21 février 2021.

L’EDITCON 2021 aborde cette année le thème Un monde — et une industrie — en mutation.

Cette année, nous avons connu des changements sans précédent. La COVID-19 a eu des impacts sur tous les aspects de nos vies et le mouvement Black Lives Matter a porté la question de la justice raciale sur la scène internationale. Notre industrie prend conscience qu’elle doit se faire plus équitable et plus inclusive, tant devant que derrière la caméra. La façon de raconter les histoires change, et la diffusion change également. Avec la fermeture des salles de cinéma et les festivals en ligne, les cinéphiles n’ont d’autre choix que de se tourner vers les plateformes de visionnement en ligne pour assouvir leur passion.

En tant que monteurs et monteuses, nos vies professionnelles ont subi les contrecoups de ces changements. Nous travaillons davantage depuis la maison ou de façon plus isolée que jamais. Dans un avenir où les films passeront peut-être directement à la diffusion en ligne sans s’arrêter dans les salles de cinéma, est-ce que les budgets en seront affectés? Est-ce que le travail à distance a une influence sur le processus créatif et technique et est-ce que notre façon de travailler en sera changée, même après la pandémie? Comment pouvons-nous rendre la postproduction équitable? L’EditCon 2021 offrira un espace où nous pourrons retisser des liens et explorer les changements qu’ont connus nos vies professionnelles et notre industrie.

En partenariat avec Nordest Studio et leur nouvelle plateforme Neme.TV, nous allons créer une expérience de conférence unique et interactive. En plus de fantastiques tables rondes avec des invité.e.s tant canadien.ne.s qu’internationaux.ales, nous organiserons des discussions plus intimes, des sortes de tables rondes réduites avec des auditoires restreints pour permettre des discussions plus intimes et pouvoir poser des questions à des experts de l’industrie, notamment lors de démonstrations technologiques. Au-delà des zooms, nous voulons mettre à profit les nouvelles technologies afin de créer des expériences de réseautage uniques. Il y aura des jeux, des tirages et plus encore pour que cet événement ne soit pas un webinaire comme les autres.

Les billets seront en vente à partir du 1er janvier 2021. Les panélistes et les invité.e.s seront annoncé.e.s sous peu!

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 039: Edit Chats with Kimberlee Mctaggart CCE and Thorben Bieger CCE

The Editors Cut - Episode 039: Kimberlee Mctaggart CCE and Thorben Bieger

Episode 039: Edit Chats with Kimberlee Mctaggart, CCE & Thorben Bieger, CCE

Today's episode is the online Master Series that took place on May 19th, 2020. Edit Chats with Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE and Thorben Bieger, CCE.

The Editors Cut - Episode 039: Kimberlee Mctaggart CCE and Thorben Bieger

Thorben is a CSA nominated editor who has edited several series and a number of features including The Child Remains, Heartbeat et All the Wrong Reasons.

Kimberlee is a Gemini award winning editor of TV series, docs, and feature films such as Blackbird and the upcoming Little Orphans. Kimberlee et Thorben have worked together on several series such as Call Me Fitz, Pure et Diggstown. They discuss their work, and what it?s like to carve out a successful editing career while working and living in Nova Scotia.

This event was moderated by Amanda Mitro.

À écouter ici !

The Editor?s Cut – Episode 039 – Edit Chats with Kimberlee Mctaggart, CCE  &Thorben Bieger, CCE

Speaker 1:

This episode was sponsored by Filet Production Services and Annex Pro Avid.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello and welcome to The Editor’s Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast and that many of you may be listening to us from part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that as long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met, and interacted. We honour respect and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights or sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions, and the concerns that impact indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action.

Sarah Taylor:

Today’s episode is the online master series that took place on May 19th, 2020. Edit chats with Kimberlee McTaggart, CCE and Thorben Bieger, CCE. Thorben is a CSA nominee editor who has worked on several series, and a number of feature films, including The Child Remains, Heartbeat and All the Wrong reasons. Kimberlee is Gemini award-winning editor of TV series, docs and feature films such as Blackbird and the upcoming Little Orphans. Kimberlee and Thorben have worked together on several series, such as Call Me Fitz, Pure and Diggstown. They discuss their work and what it’s like to carve out a successful editing career, while working and living in Nova Scotia. This event was moderated by Amanda Mitro.

[show open]

Amanda Mitro:

Welcome everybody to the masters series from Halifax, out in Nova Scotia here. I’m joined by Kimberlee McTaggart and Thorben Bieger. Thank you to the CCE for having us. And I guess should open up with introductions. Who wants to go first?

Kim McTaggart:

Thorben does.

Thorben Bieger:

Well, yes, this is exciting to be here. Anyway, my name is Thorben. I’m a picture editor. I live in Hubbard, Nova Scotia, and I have been working in the film and television business in one way or another for, I guess, almost 20 years now and editing for, I guess, the better part of 12 or 14 years. I’ve stopped counting anyway. I’m looking forward to having an interesting conversation about editing and related topics tonight.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’m Kim McTaggart. I’ve been editing for over 30 years now. Pretty much all those years in Halifax. The other day I added up how much I worked on different shows in Newfoundland, about a year and a half. So we’ll throw that in there too. I was one of those kids who loved television and knew from, I think the time I was in grade seven, that this is what I was going to do, was make TV shows. I went to film school at York University back in the ’80s when it was all film, there was no digital. I’m aging myself there. It was just shortly before digital started to come in. It was all on Steenbeck’s and Moviola’s and benches, and the first two or three of my career was all on Steenbecks and benches, actually probably the first six years.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Then we moved into digital and yeah, do I miss it? No. Digital has been the best thing ever. Yeah, so I’ve been working on in Halifax the whole time, did a lot with the National Film Board in the beginning, so a lot of documentary, but then I moved into drama, a lot of comedy actually, and I still do the odd documentary, corporate videos for the liquor store. That’s the thing about the East Coast editing, you do it all. But mostly these days I do television series and mostly with Thorben.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, we’ve worked a lot together over the years. I guess I can add a little bit to my bio in parallel to what Kim was saying. I barely registered the existence of the film industry in Canada or film industry at all. Even though I liked watching movies when I was young, I went to university and studied sciences and worked in environmental sciences for six or seven years. Then somewhere along the way, it was a great gig, but there was something else out there for me. And once, eventually I guess my sister married a film producer and that gave me, opened my eyes to that being a possibility. My music recording was particularly of interest to me before that.

 

Thorben Bieger:

That was really my way into post production in recording and mixing music, a lot of similarities. With a couple of nepotistic breaks, I guess it was back in 1999, I took a leave of absence from my real job and came to Halifax to work as second unit boom operator on Lexx. That has happened to a lot of people on that show and that led to opportunities, battlefield promotions. And within a short time, I was doing recording sound on commonly called the second main unit. 

 

We would have five page scenes with all the stars on second unit just to [inaudible 00:04:58]. From there, I had some chances to work in post-production on the next season and I’m still on it 20 years later. So I guess I’m not going back.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Cool.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’m just going to add a little to that story. In post, I don’t know if other people have experienced this, but whenever the producer has a cousin or brother or brother-in-law and they’re going to put him somewhere in a department, they stick them in posts, because they think they can do the least damage. And we heard the brother-in-law is coming, I’m like, “Oh shit,” and then it’s torment. I’m like, “Oh, okay. Sometimes it works out really well.?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Work out well eventually.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Have either of you guys worked outside of Halifax or has it just been mainly the Maritimes for both of you?

 

Kim McTaggart:

For me, early in my career, I did a lot of what’s called dialogue editing back when it was still on film. And you basically, you checker boarded dialogue that people are probably … Well, these are all editors checker boarding on your digital screen. It was all done live with film audio. I would take all the production sound and checker board it all on big benches that were six feet wide, and reeling and all that sort of stuff. And nobody, Atlanta Canada did that. I would go to Newfoundland to do every film there was, and that brought me over there about three or four times.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Then I did it in my very first comedy series, television series I ever got national show was called Gullages, that it took place in Newfoundland with a local producer Bill McGillivray. That was my big break. That was two seasons of that over there. And also in my early days doing a lot of work with the National Film Board, one of my mentors was a sound editor from, who originally started in Montreal, Les Holman. He would take me to Montreal to work on a lot of stuff, [inaudible 00:06:43] things and that sort of thing. So yeah, in the early days when I was doing sound, I was traveling all over. But since then, it’s pretty much been confined to my basement.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. That’s much the same for me. I’ve worked in Newfoundland a tiny bit. I worked on The Gavin Crawford Show in Toronto, I don’t know, 2003 or four or something like that for a few months, but for the rest of it, I believe almost everything that I’ve done has been in Halifax. And as Kim just mentioned also, for the last years I don’t know, six, seven years or more, almost everything I’ve done has been from my home office, and from my basement.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Did you find it different working, I guess in Toronto versus how you typically work out here?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, there’s a reason, I guess why most of my work has been here. I like it here. There was a time when, of course, most people remember that post production was done in post facilities, still commonly is, but it was not really possible to do it anywhere else. There was a time when it was a fantasy to be able to have the equipment at home and very suddenly that became pretty straight forward. It’s always been, that’s always been the direction that I wanted to move in any way, rather than going to where the work is. It was exciting to work in Toronto for a while.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It was a break to work at the time I was working with Dean [inaudible 00:08:07], who was the editor, and he brought me along to work on the show and I lived in the edit suite. I’d gone in the Wellesley on the fifth floor of that building that some people might recognize in St. Nicholas.

 

Amanda Mitro:

So the both of you, I guess, have experienced the digital revolution in post-production, and maybe you guys can speak a bit to how things changed from working on like those big, massive machines to computers that you can fit in your pocket almost.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, I’ll let Kim take that one because I came in and I started working on Avid, so I’ve seen the hardware, but I’ve never, never had the chance to work with it.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. Part of the reason I ended up staying here, not doing anything to further field is when digital did come in, I invested in the equipment and I would rent out the equipment. It was an older system back then called Media 100, which actually had a far superior picture, finishing picture. So we would, was doing a lot of online, more so than off-lines. But I ended up, I think I had four systems at one point, so they were rented out to various series and that kept me hopping. And then I’d be off cutting on other shows, usually on an AVID, which I really wanted to own. But then eventually I did buy a used one and then upgraded it to the top of the line model.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I remember that cost me $110,000. It was like, the whole system was probably about $120,000, but the thing is you would rent it and get lots of money for it. So it all worked out in the end. In fact, it was great. Yeah, I went right from when everything was outboard, you needed all this other stuff to make it work. I couldn’t work at home. I needed my office, and all of that, but as computers became faster and faster, you didn’t need that outboard stuff. The computer did all the work and now it’s like, what we do with a laptop is just astounding. There of course is no real rental market anymore, because everybody can own their own.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ve seen it go the whole way. I don’t know what else to say about that, except I love where we’re at with it now. It’s just, it’s the best. And I mean we’re all going to be doing so much more of it now with this COVID-19. I mean  Thorben and I have been living the quarantine life for the last six or seven years, the way we work, so nothing will change for us. But I think we’re going to see more and more people working the way I do or the way we do here in Atlanta, Canada.

 

Amanda Mitro:

How do you think that’ll open up the possibilities for working with people further afield, like collaborations between countries and continents and just opening that whole thing up?

 

Thorben Bieger:

I think it will. Some producers that I’ve worked with are made it part of their style to, or just experience with working remotely and with putting together teams that are geographically distant, and others not so much. I guess it’s just what their experience is. I’ve worked on teams where there was an editor in Nova Scotia and one in Toronto and one in Los Angeles. This was just, they were quite familiar with that process and it was seamless. Other people don’t, other producers who hadn’t done that just might be more familiar with just centralizing things.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And apart from the fact that we’re going to be coming up with new guidelines and that kind of thing for social distancing and for hygienic productions, it’ll be easy to implement that in post.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. We’ve already implemented, I think and internationally, I think people work that way. Like everybody in Toronto all works a certain way. Everybody’s together in their place and all that. It’s going to be new and exciting them, and maybe it will open up their possibilities, but there’s still, as we were talking about tax credits and provincial borders, which will still make it difficult for us to get hired in Ontario and vice versa and all of that. But still it makes it more possible, so you never know. Should we show, clip and talk about editing?

 

Amanda Mitro:

Quick question before we go to video, Jeffrey Fish wants to know, do you think that software platforms like Premier Pro, pushing for a shared project platform will create more possibilities for non-centralized post team workflows, or is there still a great benefit to post teams being together?

 

Kim McTaggart:

Well, I mean, Avid already has, can already do sharing. Jeff, have you ever been in CBC? It’s all network sharing, all that sort of stuff. It’s all there. I think people will get a taste of it now, because they’re really utilizing it extensively. I think those systems were more for sharing within the one building, like is how it’s really been used. And now people are taking their systems homes, because they have to, and they’re sharing it that way. So, yeah. Is there a benefit to everybody being in the same building versus that? We’ll find out. For producers or for a lot of folks, it’ll be financial what works out best but creatively, what works out best?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I mean we’ve been doing this for six or seven years, but I think back to the last project we did where we were all under the same roof on Call Me Fitz, four of us, all crammed together doing our work. There really is something to that too.

 

Thorben Bieger:

You really miss it when you’re gone. I think it’s a real, there is a trade-off and collaborating by notes. Well, for one, it depends on the quality of the notes. Some people are very good at giving detailed notes, but even in those cases, there’s something that’s lost when you don’t have intense hours in the same room together, which sometimes we still do. It’s not uncommon for a director or producer to come to where I live in Hubbard and spend part of a day. That’s usually as far as it goes. We might sport together for some hours on two or three consecutive days.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I think the driving factor; it used to be that an edit suite costs what, a couple of thousand bucks or more a week to rent and the schedule drove this style of working long hours in the same space. I miss? there are pros and cons to the way we work. It always was, so it’s fairly solitary work, but it’s become much more so now with edit suite and at home.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Then of course there’s a whole issue of assistant editors who used to always be around and would see your work. I know on Call Me Fitz, we’d always make our assistant editor watch the show, because she had fine impeccable taste and would give us feedback and notes, like first person who ran through. You could still get that, but you tend not to, just because they’re not there in the room with you and they’re off doing their thing. You just don’t have the same relationship and the same reciprocal learning that goes on there. I don’t want to say the editor always passing through the assistant editor. It’s really a reciprocal thing. That’s a big issue in editing is the passing on of knowledge.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But I do think there’s room for the software to catch up with that or to create, for it to offer some functionalities that make that more possible. We were talking Kim and I just recently in final cut, and an earlier version had this desktop theater or functionality that allowed you to, it created a video chat in which you could stream your output to another person, and that you were able to see that person’s face on their web cam. There was actually, you could see facial reactions of the person you’re working with. And as long as your internet connection was good, after a few minutes of working like that, you’d forget that you’re not in the same room, and that feature was completely dropped and no one has picked up on it in the last decade, really.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And it’s surprising to me that that’s not being really developed further, because it seems there are no constraints technically to making that collaboration.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. Built in into all the Annalise will be that function to share.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Okay. Cool. All right. Did we want to do a clip?

 

Thorben Bieger:

I guess the first one that I would maybe present is called the Corridor. I think this one is interesting to me, it’s during the best years I think that I can remember as an editor in Nova Scotia. One of the great advantages of working here for me has been the variety of things that you could work on. In the really good times there’d be a series to work on in the summer and a telephone, and like a little bit to tell its own feature to work on, which often happened in the off season and maybe some short films or little things and things, really get how all kinds of different work and a nice variety.

 

Thorben Bieger:

The Corridor was a feature that I, it was around 2010 or ’11 I think, a science fiction feature shot in Nova Scotia. Had a cast of, an ensemble cast of five guys. It’s cabin in the woods, science fiction kind of movie. They discover a bizarre phenomenon that starts affecting their minds. I thought it was interesting to take a look at it because for one thing, it was a fairly small budget, and another thing that I found interesting over time, it’s been in some of the low budget features, people have tried to discover ways to get more, to go further with the small budget that they have. Sometimes that involves different shooting styles, doing a lot of oner’s or not shooting regresses. You get a certain style of films from that.

 

Thorben Bieger:

This one was interesting to me, because with the kind of ensemble cast that they had, it wasn’t really possible to do that. They didn’t really scrimp on coverage and lots of different angles, the sizes, because with five people in the room, you had to move around, but I’ll let you be the judge of that after you’re going to look at the clip.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Also, clip number one.

 

Speaker 10:

I think it’s talking to me. That’s signing. It’s given me a sign.

 

Speaker 11:

It’s insane.

 

Speaker 10:

Connect, connect, connect.

 

Speaker 12:

Wait. No, did this fuck up the rest of my tapes?

 

Speaker 13:

Oh yeah, because that is real important right now.

 

Speaker 14:

What’s that supposed to mean?

 

Speaker 13:

Well, it means who gives a shit.

 

Speaker 12:

You want to smack in the mouth?

 

Speaker 14:

Something bigger is happening here.

 

Speaker 13:

No, no, you’re right. You’re right. Maybe the time has come for us to set aside all these childish things, bobcat.

 

Speaker 12:

Says the guy who can’t come at all.

 

Speaker 13:

What did you just say?

 

Speaker 12:

You don’t know what to do with that. Why for yours, do you, hugsy? Do you need me to knock her up for you? Your wheel spins so fast, but the rest of you is just shooting blanks.

 

Speaker 10:

Oh, shit.

 

Speaker 14:

Thanks a lot fucker.

 

Speaker 10:

I swear to God, I didn’t say anything.

 

Speaker 14:

Oh, sure. Well, I guess you’re [inaudible 00:19:41].

 

Speaker 10:

Look, I didn?t.

 

Speaker 12:

I don’t know how I knew. I thought we all know.

 

Speaker 14:

This is what’s happening. The corridors changing our mind.

 

Speaker 13:

Do you know what; you don’t even deserve a kid. You are a kid. You never got past high school football, your big bump baby.

 

Speaker 14:

Would you just listen to me? Look, why shouldn’t that place cross our wires like I did with the snowmobile or your cell phone? It’s opening up some sort of pathway out there, right? Well, what if it’s opening up a pathway in here too. It’s driving us out of our minds and into everyone else’s, and the one that I have to share is sick.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I was proud of this movie and who directed it, I think his words, I wasn’t actually at the premier, but he said on the first day when he started shooting movie, his plan was to make the best movie ever made. 

 

And by lunchtime on the first day, he just wanted not to make the worst movie ever made, because of the number of compromises that happen every day, while you’re shooting and all the problems that you just, and the things that you have to, the ideas you have to throw away because you just can’t do this and that. But there was something, they really were kind of like a group of people ?

 

Thorben Bieger:

The film is a cabin in the woods movie, and things very badly, but I think in a way I think they also were a little bit off in the woods and focused on something. I don’t know, I can’t tell too many stories about it because I wasn’t there, but I think some of the cast may have known each other anyway. Anyway they seem to form quite a good ensemble. And for me it was quite exciting to work on and a great team to be part of.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Cool. I think Jenna had a question, Jenna, I’m going to let you talk.

 

Jenna:

Hello. Hey, one question, you were saying about being remote editor. Right now, you guys working as a remote editor or you guys are working on projects that you already were working before this whole mess?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Right now I’m not working on a project at all, other than sorting through things in my office and working in my garden. There’s nothing really happening to work on in Nova Scotia right now.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. And I’m not working on anything either. The way the production cycles go, if we’re on a series issue in the summer, we’re usually done by February and then you wait for the cycle to begin. And now, as we know, everyone’s in a holding cycle, so not much going on yet.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Thank you. So maybe Thorben, you can speak a little more about what your process is for, when you’re approaching a scene or a project in general, but I know it’s sometimes easier to take it scene by scene.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. I’m not that methodical. Sometimes it changes. Some mornings I am or I approach things differently. Sometimes part way through, I realize that I’m making a mess. But if I? What I’ve gotten into the habit of doing, especially when I’m working, for example in a series, and there’s a lot of material to get through is on the first pass of watching dailies and starting to cut something, I no longer worry about leaving a complete mess on the timeline. Sometimes I used to have this fear that someone might see what, someone might look at my work and progress, and I think, “What is that person thinking??

 

Thorben Bieger:

But now, I’ve found that if I just go through the material, and throw anything that I like on the timeline, maybe in a few places that are actual cuts or in a few places, it’s just a few different takes of the same line, my first pass sometimes is just … It’s not a cut at all. It’s just basically some selects and a few ideas. And what I found is that, when I do that, when I come back to that and just use that timeline with the selects on there as a starting point, sometimes it’s a much faster way for me to start putting something together, because of course, I’m still going to go back to the other material.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But those clips that I’ve pulled are more as reminders or as markers of what I was looking at or what I was thinking. And then looking at those will make me go back to other shots and say, “Well, okay, here’s how do I might do that.” It’s basically the first step is more about, becoming familiar with the material before it’s not a new cut, because I think for me, it’s a mistake to start cutting too soon to get … The temptation is to start fine cutting very quickly. And by doing this, it really is creating a step in which the very first so-called cut is really just, not even a, it’s not even a rough cut.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It’s just some selects. But then there are other days when I, for some reason you caught up on the wrong side of bed, start working completely differently. I’m not strict in that routine, but if I’m under had a lot of time pressure and I have to get through all this, then that’s usually the approach that I’ll take.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Do you find it when you find things kind of crystallize, when you start collaborating, when you go into the director’s cut?

 

Thorben Bieger:

For sure. In my first cuts, in the first assemblies that I will present to directors or producers, I’ll tend to stay close to the script and there may be … I may start getting ideas. I may see something that I’m not in love with or I think, “Well, I don’t think that part is necessarily, there’s something not working.” But no matter how well I read the script or how well I think I understand the piece, there are always surprises. And to often find myself re-interpreting what’s there based on conversations with the director, for example, who will explain why it was done a certain way, what they were looking for, and suddenly something that may have felt like it probably isn’t, because my eyes have been just a bit open to it a different interpretation of it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I try not to become too attached, I guess, to my own interpretation. I guess the other philosophy that I’ve learned is that, editing doesn’t really start for real until there’s an assembly, until there’s a cut of a whole piece. Everything before that is legwork. And sure, it’s a creative process, but really the whole purpose of all that tedious legwork of putting together a piece is so that, you can then start tearing it apart and seeing it and changing it. I like to make it as presentable as possible, to put music in there and smooth it over to make it feel viewable, but all with the goal, just making it viewable so that I could start tearing it apart.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And for me, that’s really when the fun starts. Some of the things that you have in an early cut may stand the test and not change much, but nothing is spared from scrutiny at that point. And because it’s only then that you really see it for what it is.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Yeah. What was it like cutting, I guess like The Corridor you were saying is kind of like a cabin in the woods, so how did you find cutting like a suspenseful horror style film? What was your favorite part about it?

 

Thorben Bieger:

It was actually one of the early … I have to dig deep into my memory now, because this was, I think it was 2010 or ’11. It’s been some time, but it was an early, one of the earlier projects that I actually did in my basement. I remember, it was quite fun. There were times, my father was here for a visit and he was just sitting there watching it. It was the first time that he was observing what I was doing, the whole editing process. He was kind of just shaking his head at it. Yeah, I live out in the, kind of out in the woods myself, and so certainly it didn’t hurt. I wasn’t frightening myself quite yet. But it was nice to work that way.

 

Thorben Bieger:

At the same time, this was also an example where, because of schedules and the fact that I was working at home, it was a challenge to work together with the other … It was hard to schedule the time to work with other people. And back then we all had fast internet, but uploading high resolution cuts and sharing files, wasn’t quite as easy as it is now. It was more of a hybrid version of what we were doing. And sometimes I’d load everything into the car and drive to downtown and set up an edit suite somewhere, just to work for two afternoons with someone, because it was the only way to get at the time.

 

Amanda Mitro:

And just kind of going to throw this in there, Anthony Pete posed the question, for someone who feels stuck in ads and commercials, what’s your advice in successfully transitioning into narratives, whether TV or features?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ll go. I would say just you got to cut stuff. You got to cut for everybody and anybody who let you kind of film, you’re probably in, I don’t know where you’re at Anthony. I’m betting, you’re not in Halifax, because there’s not a lot of ads and commercials cut here. I’m betting you’re in Toronto, but I would just try and get in with co-ops, anybody doing short films, cut everything you can probably for free but just build a portfolio. And the other thing is assist in editing is another way in. If you’re cutting already ads and commercials, it may feel like a bit of a step down, but it’s a foot in as well.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well this is something that we, Kim and I have a lots of common conversations about it. Assistant editing is really not what it used to be a lot of the time, because for me it was, and for many people, it was the way in. It was an apprenticeship opportunity. You get to work with material. First of all, you had access to an AVID back when there weren’t, when home computers couldn’t do this kind of thing. Over time, it’s become often a position that’s very much technical data management. There’s just not enough time on a typical editing room staff for the assistant to have energy and time, and the creative juices at the end of the day to start cutting scenes at night or whatever.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But if you can find your find opportunities to work in an editing department where there’s more than one assistant, where there’s a bigger team, that’s certainly a great way to get access to scenes. Even if it’s just in your spare time, even the editor doesn’t even know you’re doing it, you have those bins and all that footage there, you can cut it. I don’t know, don’t imagine that there are many editors out there who wouldn’t take an interest in watching what you’ve done and giving you feedback and encouraging that. I’ve had the opportunity to do it, but I don’t get to return that favor that much anymore these days, to give people that I’m working with scenes to work with.

 

Thorben Bieger:

If that’s an option to do that kind of thing, if there are opportunities for that, I would definitely look into it.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Assistants, they have a totally different job, and it doesn’t always lead into editing and that’s entirely true. And not every assistant editor wants to be an editor. If you are that type that do want to be an editor, make sure everyone knows it and that you do take those opportunities Thorben was talking about. And then maybe you will be given opportunities to cut. I know on a couple of my shows, usually I try and cut all my scenes right from the start, but there are times it’s gone so crazy, we just hand them off to assistants to cut a scene or two, and you don’t really worry if they’re good or, check your portfolio to see if they can do it. You don’t have time. You just say, “Please cut it,” and you get to see what they can do. The opportunities do exist there.







Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. In short films, Anthony, as Kim was saying before, film co-ops or any kind of opportunities like that to work on people’s short films. During the years that I worked as an assistant editor ?there were I don’t know if it’s, I guess there still those kinds of things here now, right? Because film [inaudible 00:32:11] and those kinds of programs, they’re really great ways, because during the time when you’re working as an assistant editor, you get to work on a scene here and a scene there, or maybe a section or some sound effects, whatever, but then working on it on a short film, it felt like a big step. You’re doing the whole cut and it’s a really good exercise I think. If you can get involved in any of those, it’s very useful too.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right. Kim, do we want to look at one of your clips?

 

Kim McTaggart:

Sure. What I get up first is a clip from a show that is actually over 20 years old, but it’s still on my demo reel. I have reframed it for 16 by nine. I cheat, it’s actually four by three, because of course it was shot on beta cam or whatever the hell they were shooting on back then. But this is a show called Made in Canada, which just became available again on CBC Gem. So if you like what you see, go check it out. This was about a fictional film production company in Toronto, headed up by a bit of a buffoon, and his underlings one played by the showrunner/creator Rick Mercer and Leah Pinsent. So this scene has Peter Keleghan as the head of the production company, Leah Pinson and Rick Mercer.

 

Kim McTaggart:

What I loved about the show was, it was the first time we really got to cut comedy where the editing really played a big role in the comedy. I’d said I worked on a series before called Gullage?s, and it was show run and created by a feature filmmaker. It was a half-hour comedy with the heart of an art film. Whereas this one is very much fast paced. Comedy comes into cuts. It’s kinetic. Everything is shot with two cameras at all times. AB camera both for the most part were all usable shots. Often your B camera can be kind of karate, it’s just there because it is. But this one had a great shot, so I had tons and tons of coverage.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I’m just going to show it and then I’ll talk a little bit about how I approached the scenes for this show. Anyway, so it’s a second clip Made in Canada.

 

Peter Keleghan:

And then it occurred to me, it’s only the characters in the shows that audiences are interested in.

 

Leah Pinson:

Not to the exclusion of story or larger themes.



Peter Keleghan:

Yes.

 

Leah Pinson:

What about say a good art film?

 

Peter Keleghan:

Come on, come on. Be serious. I’m talking about real stuff that people actually watch. It’s only character.

 

Rick Mercer:

What about special effects?

 

Peter Keleghan:

Okay. Granted, but only character in special effects. We’ve been wasting a fortune on scripts and story departments. It’s all character.

 

Leah Pinson:

On what do you base this?

 

Peter Keleghan:

I base it on all the bio pics and the biographies that are out there now and the walk of fame. Are there any television shows in the walk of fame? No, it’s all people. It’s celebrities.

 

Leah Pinson:

I think Lass he got a star.

 

Rick Mercer:

The dog, not the show

 

Leah Pinson:

The dog got a star.

 

Rick Mercer:

It’s a leaf. They give you a leaf in Toronto.

 

Peter Keleghan:

Anyway, that’s besides the point. What I’m saying is that television is essentially voyeurism. Our faces are the glass screen and we are looking in, not out.



Leah Pinson:

Can I quote you on that?

 

Peter Keleghan:

No. I think I may have read that somewhere.

 

Rick Mercer:

It doesn’t sound familiar.

 

Peter Keleghan:

I probably got some of it wrong, anyway.

 

Rick Mercer:

Well, Alan, I agree with you 100%. Anything else?

 

Peter Keleghan:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Beaver Creek hasn’t been getting any ink this season, hasn’t it?

 

Rick Mercer:

Well, it’s been on the air for a long time. All the stories have been written.

 

Leah Pinson:

Most of them weren’t that favorable.

 

Peter Keleghan:

Right, so we set up a romance between two of the characters on the show and a parallel romance between two of the actors playing the parts, and we let the information out and people start watching. Maybe they get married on the show, but it’s for real and they have kids. And then the kids are on the show.

 

Rick Mercer:

You’re talking about breeding the actors.

 

Peter Keleghan:

Yeah. You think the Screen Actors Guild would have a problem with that?

 

Leah Pinson:

It’s a page one rewrite on God’s Script. That’s probably Writer’s Guild jurisdiction.




Kim McTaggart:

Julie says Made in Canada was terrific show and it was, it was really a great show. Four seasons on Gem right now. But yeah, I loved working on that show. I was telling Thorben I was young and eager then, and I poured over every single frame in that show. I remember my method was, I’d sit down with the dailies and there’d be a ton of them. And I would watch every single take including all the non-circle takes, everything. I kept copious notes. My big thing was, and the big thing on that show was every gag, gags were important, more important than the story. If we were running heavy, if a show was a minute heavy and you had to take seconds out of it, it was really easy just to pull out a joke here and there, but you were not allowed to.

 

Kim McTaggart:

There was no joke pulling. You could take out story. We’d take out some … I remember some episodes; I’m amazed that people can follow the story because the jokes had to be in there. But anyway, so that was what I treated the jokes like gold. I would build everything around all the gags and would pick the absolute best lines I thought could work for each gag, which frame size I would use. So I knew how to build around that. And also the whip pans that was a real hit and miss, because there was always a camera whipping around doing things and every now and then it would just do a perfect land on the perfect line, and those were pulled out.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So I’d have on my timeline, a chunk here, chunk there, chunk there usually the gags, and then I’d build around that because that was the most important stuff. And also they liked to punch in, punch in on a close up of the gag. So you had to have, make sure you have good wide shots for some other stuff. So that was a really fun show to learn how to cut comedy, because, well, it was all in studio for one thing. So it was really, you didn’t have to deal with any of that location stuff, so there was no technical problems ever. You were strictly dealing with performance of the actors.

 

Kim McTaggart:

The cast was amazing and gave you just great stuff. I used to always watch my … Since that show 23 years ago, I’ve started watching my takes always in backwards order. So I’ll watch take four first and three then two. It was because I realized on that show, I’d always tend to gravitate to the one that made me laugh first. And it was never, it wasn’t often the best take. It took me a while to realize that. I would just find it hilarious and that was it. That was the one. I started watching them backwards for that very reason. Anyway, I just want to show that, because I learned so much on that show, cutting that show and working with the showrunners on that show, which was basically Rick.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Was it common to find yourself at a dead end? How did you deal with that if you had the perfect whip pan, and the perfect something else and no way to connect them? Did that problem ever happen?






Kim McTaggart:

Well, you know what, you would think it could, but because two things, it was such a great cast and almost every director on that show, maybe it was a different time, more money, more days to shoot, probably a five day shoot. Now it’s commonly just four days, but there was so much coverage. There was so much coverage that you could pretty much build around whatever you wanted to build around. So yeah, it wasn’t too bad. Oh, there’s some notes, favorite line from Made in Canada, what’s the porn version of Beaver Creek called? Beaver Creek.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah, that’s very funny. Then somebody says, “Yes, very funny, like Newsroom. Well, Newsroom is another great show that’s now on CBC Gem. If you’re a fan of Newsroom, you’ll remember the two reporters. One was Jeremy Holtz played one of them and the other reporter was played by Mark Ferrell, and Mark Farrell was the head writer on Made in Canada. I worked with him again later on This Hour has 22 Minutes. It had a real similar sensibility, funny yet just a touch mean.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, and very … Kind of just that clip, particularly is a good example, is full of inside jokes that I laughed several times, but there were just comments on the industry that people who aren’t in the industry might not find this funny.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. I learned the term from Mark Farrell inside baseball. He’s a big baseball fan too. I’d never heard that term before, but that show is inside baseball lots. The other cool thing about that show was no soundtrack or no music, none whatsoever. The only music we ever used was tragically hip. The theme song was tragically hip. Then maybe in the entire four seasons, maybe five times I got a tragically hip song to do a montage for. That was always just the best, the best when we got to do that. But yeah. So no music, no laugh, track nothing, which was pretty neat to it.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Did they end up doing a lot of improv or did they stick to a script?

 

Kim McTaggart:

No, no improv on that show. No. And the actors, I think weren’t comedians, they were actors. It’s not like they’d start riffing and coming up with all their own funny stuff. They pretty much stuck to the script and they were really great scripts. That was the best thing about that show is the writing.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Kim, also doesn’t that … That was the fairly early days of shaky cam, right? It may not have been the first, but I don’t, know how much of that there was before.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Probably not a half-hour comedy format. There certainly was in drama, The Hill Street, not Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue or whatever it was called.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, homicide [inaudible 00:41:45].

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah. Were they on homicide all those shows? Yeah, they were on, but yeah, you didn’t see it much in a half hour comedy, and probably not in Canada. I’m just going to answer a question here, because they see my name. Kim, you spoke about loving the digital world of editing. How has working with film helped or hindered your schools in your career with the digital editing world? Well, I said I didn’t miss it and that’s true, but how has it helped or hindered it? It certainly hasn’t hindered. I think the thing I carried from the film days that has stayed with me is, when I’m watching a cut, I always try to go somewhere else and I won’t watch it here. Well, a few years ago I put it on a DVD and took it home and put it in, watch it on my TV, in my living room just somewhere else.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I think that comes from the days of cutting film. You couldn’t watch it on your little Steenbeck that was this big, you’d go get a theater and watch it and it would be different. You’d have people sitting with you, and it was always a real good experience to watch it with somebody else, watch it somewhere differently, so you could almost disconnect it from it a little bit. That’s something, it can be hard to do when you’ve been working on something for three weeks or three months, and it’s hard to pull away from it. So always make sure I go somewhere else, and I think that’s from my film days.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah. Well certainly, it was an early lesson for me that, working on something and feeling really great about it, that feeling could evaporate painfully quickly when someone else was sitting next to you. You suddenly realize, “Oh, this is not … They’re not seeing that at all.” One’s own perception is so affected by being someone else watching the way an audience does, but I do the same thing, taking it upstairs, taking it anywhere other than … Even if it’s a different screen or a different room, and later on in the process with other people is … Because it does disconnect you from what you?ve kind of taken for granted. You assume that something’s working, but you notice very quickly if it’s not having the same effect on someone else, so you have to, resets your expectation.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Or you think it’s okay, “I’m not so bad. it’ll be okay, it’ll work.” Then somebody else sits with you and you go, “Oh God,” as soon as that cut comes up, you go, “No, it doesn’t work.?

 

Thorben Bieger:

It’s much more common for that to happen then for you to realize, “Oh, it’s not as bad as I thought [inaudible 00:44:09], but they laughed.?

 

Kim McTaggart:

That rarely happens.

Amanda Mitro:

There’s DGA [inaudible 00:44:15], what advice would you give students leaving college or university who want to be an editor? Secondly, what do you look for in a new assistant? What traits or skills make them attractive to experienced editors?

 

Kim McTaggart:

Well, I would say if you want to be an editor, two things, be an editor and cut everything that you can anywhere, a wedding video, your sisters, I don’t know the high school project, whatever, just cut stuff. And two, tell everybody you’re an editor. If that’s what you want to be, introduce yourself, tell people you’re an editor and that’s what you want to do. I mean that’s the big picture kind of stuff to do. The more practical stuff is yeah, to go the assistant editor route, which I see your second part is what traits or skills make them attractive to experienced editors.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ll go and then I know Thorben has stuff to say about that too. I think what makes a great assistant; obviously, you have to know the technical inside out. If you’re going to be working on the bigger shows, it’s going to be Avid. Know that Avid inside out and know everything that an assistant editor has to do and know it inside out. And secondly, what I’d be looking for is, assistant editors that want to be editors, I think is great. I mean  I’ve had both assistant editors who are just assistant editors. That’s all they do.

 

Kim McTaggart:

They have no aspirations to be an editor, and then others that do want to make that leap and want to do anything creative that you hand them, whether it be cutting the previously ons, putting in sound, doing your soundtrack, cutting scenes, anything like that. They just take it with great joy and do it. They may not be that great at it right away, but that’s all part of learning and they just do it.  So that’s what I would be I’d be looking for. Thorben?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, no, I think back to my own, what did I learn from and what did it take me time to learn? Some of those things were letting go of ideas that maybe were mine, but didn’t serve the film, and also what’s another thing that took me a long time to learn was, how to feel comfortable around, when suddenly a producer or a director was in the room. It is actually kind of , for me was unnerving, but spending a lot of time as an assistant editor and … It’s a low pressure place to be. You can watch so much going on and quickly, some of the aspects of the work are tedious, being there and being willing to absorb whatever you can, someone who’s willing to try anything.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Sometimes it might be straining out dialogue, but basically it’s a combination of knowing the software so well, that you can be helpful and make things easy and keep things really organized, and being game for trying anything creative.




Amanda Mitro:

The one thing I would say if you happen to be in Toronto and once all of the COVID thing is over, the CCE does have a fantastic assistant editing workshop with Paul Whitehead. He?s kind of  like the godfather of assistants.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Join the CCE. And if you’re in Toronto, go to Edit Con and meet editors and talk editing.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right.  And I see that Jenna Spinola would like to pose another question. Hello, Jenna.

 

Jenna:

Hello again.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Hi.

 

Jenna:

Just following up this assistant editor subject, in the case how you guys see like  someone that is an editor, like I forget the name of the guy that was asking that he was working on commercial. He’s already a seasoned editor on commercials and he wants to move to features, how you guys see like an editor that is already an editor that wants to assist to learn?

Jenna:

Is it a good thing or are you guys saying, “Oh,” maybe it would be like Thorben said start to cutting small films or something like that?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I think it’s probably a combo of both. You know if he was a brand new assistant editor or just out of college, like we were just speaking to the other gentlemen, you know then it?s assisting is a good way to go. And I say cut anything, but for somebody who is already an editor and they’re just going to be working in a different medium, they’re still bringing all those editing skills and sensibilities. You’re absolutely right. They should really be trying to cut some short films and get out there and cut some, not your sister’s high school project, but a young up and coming director who is doing a short film, just anything that they can get their hands on.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And it might be, it’ll be a little easier for them, because they are an editor and they do have some sort of portfolio, even if it isn’t in short films and people will look at it and see what you’ve done. And if they see something in you and want to take a chance on you doing it, then that’s great. So?





Thorben Bieger:

Well, I guess someone has to always be willing to hire you for the bigger project that you want to get. It depends on who that is, but it might be someone that you know, so that you have some kind of a relationship, with either they know what, you’ve worked with them before, maybe on a short film. But if it’s someone who’s completely unknown to you, you have to have some body of work to I think, to convince them. Or there has to be some kind of recommendation. Even when you’re moving from assistant editing to editing, sometimes in my own experience, there were times when I decided, “Okay, now I am an editor,” but I had to go back and do assistant editing jobs again.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There were times when I felt like, “At some point I’m going to not do that anymore,” but if the only opportunity that’s out there is assistant editor, in well, that’s what you do. And likewise, when you’re trying to maybe switch from one genre from commercials or from factual entertainment to drama, sometimes it might mean that you have to take a step back and make connections with other editors or with other, by working at a lower level in a different style, you’re meeting the other editors and maybe producers who then recognize you, and that goes all the way too.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Well, I’m just going to add one more thing. Just because there seems to be a lot of interest in how you get your jobs and everything, you know one thing I always say when you’re getting hired, how do you get hired? Do they know you? They already know your work and all of that. And yeah, that’s the answer, but really what it comes down to, I always say is trust. It’s what you’ve done your work, but it’s the trust that you built. They trust you. What I mean by they trust you is, you’re the one in there playing with this mound of material and pulling out the best takes and putting it together.

 

Kim McTaggart:

They have to trust your taste, your work method, that it’s going to be the best. When they come in and look at it and they like it, they go, “That’s great.” That’s probably, “She makes great choices.” So that’s probably going to be the best, something like that, but basically it’s trust between two people. So when you’re looking to become, meet other editors and you want to become an assistant and move up, make sure that that level of trust always is in everything that you do. Don’t flake out on anything. I always tell people, just work hard, just do your job and do it the hardest you can.

 

Kim McTaggart:

That helps build trust too. Let them know who you are. Don’t be afraid to talk about the films you watch and the television shows you like, because that helps give a sense of what your film sensibilities are and what you like, and that helps build trust too. So I mean maybe that’s a little esoteric, but I always think that is one of the biggest things besides your talent is that you build a trust with people.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Excellent answer. Did we want to do another clip?





Thorben Bieger:

Great. So, well, I guess, where do we go next? Maybe something completely bizarre and different. I worked on a very unusual show and as part of the fun of a good year in Nova Scotia, and the kind of mix of things that I enjoy working on, sometimes it’s very experimental. And a show that I worked on a couple of years ago was called Clay’s POV. It was a call itself the first ever, first person point of view series. I think it’s an interesting thing to look at because first it was very experimental. It’s people trying to come up in the world in the, in the size of budgets that we often work in here, it’s not possible to make anything that competes on the same level with shows like big cable dramas that everyone loves.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And so how do you do something different that doesn’t feel like a bad tone than something else? Well, this show is somebody who’s attempted at that. The concept is basically, it’s a travel blog type of series, but it’s fictional. It’s based loosely on a Japanese novel in which a husband is spying on his wife’s diary. But he’s pretty sure that she knows he’s doing it and the things he’s writing in it or she’s sending him messages through it. But then he constantly has to wonder if that’s the case or not. Maybe that’s the novel that it’s based on, and in this show there’s a Canadian hitchhiker who’s also a filmmaker, who’s traveling through Europe.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And the idea of this show is first of all, to make it through the eyes or through the camera of the main character. So you never see him, you only hear him and to use a very, very small crew and to use locations in Europe as sort of the production value, rather than trying to build big studios and big, you know or cool sets. They would take a very small crew and go on train to Amalfi Coast of Italy or to Pompei or Prague, and just kind of was very … There were scripts, but they often went off script. It was very documentary style of editing for a travel show, in which the travel?in which the  beauty shots are just incidental to the background.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But I guess, editorially the main challenge of this show was how to try to make a show work without reverses, basically to tell a story through the eyes of the main character. Maybe we’ll take a look at the clip, and talk about how well that works or not after you’ve seen it. It’s number four Clay’s POV.

 

Anton:

Here, check it out.

 

Speaker 20:

650,000 for that. It’s ridiculous. I don’t understand.

 

Anton:

Yeah. Well, the boy, his father is a fat cat banker who stole millions from his shareholders. Money’s nothing to him.





Speaker 21:

And look who.

 

Speaker 20:

I know him. Isn’t it-

 

Anton:

Yeah, Pietro Pancetta, or he used to be. Now, he’s [inaudible 00:55:30] and he’s in the fine art business. I bumped into him in rehab in France. We became mates.

 

Speaker 21:

In rehab?

 

Speaker 20:

Didn’t you wish you were a fish?

 

Anton:

No.

 

Speaker 21:

Not so much.

 

Speaker 20:

You’re so beautiful. I think either other there’d be a fish.

 

Anton:

Yeah. I think you’re around the twist now.

 

Speaker 21:

Peter paid Anton to make the first bid.

 

Anton:

Yeah. He’ll get the ball rolling.

 

Speaker 20:

Is it allowed?

 

Anton:

Well, technically legally, no.



Speaker 21:

Then what if no one else bids and you win the auction?

 

Anton:

Well, then the painting doesn’t sell. Look, if some rich wanker wants to buy the art, he just buys it, okay? No one’s forcing him. I was just facilitating the mood, adding to the excitement which I’m doing as a one-off favor to Peter. It’s not like I’m going to make a career out of it or anything. He’s been showing me the ropes in the fine art business. It’s basically just an income tax from rich drunk guys, which gets me thinking.

 

Speaker 20:

Thinking how?

 

Anton:

Well, thinking that some of these rich drunk guys need to experience the fine art of sharing some of their good fortune with Anton Von Pinkel.

 

Speaker 20:

Yeah.

 

Anton:

Yeah. Meaning they buy some art from me.

 

Speaker 21:

Anton, everyone knows the art world’s, but there’s a difference between a genuine bullshitter and bullshit bullshitter. They’re going to smell you coming a mile away.

 

Anton:

Mate, that might be true, except that these drunk guys at the auctions, know fuck all about the art they’re buying, except for the name on them, which means all I need is something with the right signature on it.

 

Speaker 21:

And how are you going to come up with something with the right signature on it?

 

Anton:

Old Pinkel has a plan mate.

 

Amanda Mitro:

So that was fun. So the camera is a character in that?

 

Thorben Bieger:

The camera is, yeah. Right in the main title sequence, the character introduces himself and says, “You can hear me, but you can’t see me.” And sometimes the main characters habit of filmmaking was useful and was there by design, because it allowed sometimes his computer or his phone or his camera to be a device for which you would see things as well. So sometimes he lifts the camera right up to the screen. You see it, and you use reflections or what’s on the screen to add the missing element of the reverse shot.

 

Kim McTaggart:

That was well shot too. It looked really cool.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, and that’s another thing, one of the reasons why I chose that scene was because, it was always a challenge to come up with something. In this scene, it wasn’t planned. They found this location said, “Okay, we’ll stand around the aquarium,” and that way they could shoot through the glass and use that whole layer of fish, through which you could see the main character. It helps, at least I found it helped to get … When you’re cutting laterally from one character to another, without having ..without being able to go to the reverse, it’s finding ways to add density often helped.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There were times when they would try to do things in oner’s or try to do things with pens. And there were times when they would do things very experimentally, like let the camera roam around the room as if the person wasn’t interested in the conversation and was just looking at a corner of the ceiling. A lot of those things felt a little bit well, forced. It felt like he didn’t, it felt like naturally … It gives you that drunk feeling of being forced to look in another direction, when it’s not where your eye goes.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Whereas eventually after two seasons of the show, it was decided that it was better, to figure out ways to make cuts. For a lot of reasons, it was better to figure out ways to make cuts. And although it does take some adjusting, it starts eventually to feel  quite natural, in the same way that perhaps shaky camera watching different frame rates, watching 60 frames per second, at first it can be really off-putting or difficult to become accustomed to. But after a while, you just accept is as a part of the show and become accustomed to it and stop thinking about it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It was a very interesting project to work on, because there were basically no rules at all. There was nothing that you couldn’t try. Often episodes were little bit parts didn’t work, or they ended up being late and you’d have to invent something. We had lots of footage, wherever they traveled they’d mount GoPros or cameras onto cars or motorcycles, to shoot time-lapses. So we have all kinds of generic, I guess, material. And sometimes you’d have to invent something through a fantasy or just sort of a poetic inner moment of watching clouds or whatever it might be.





Thorben Bieger:

There really was no limit to what you could attend, and sometimes in desperation to put things together. It’s a real contrast to conventional television but one that was quite fun to work on.

 

Amanda Mitro:

That’s very cool.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Hey, Thorben when I said … I had said that it felt like it should be panning because that’s the way his eyes-

 

Thorben Bieger:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

 

Kim McTaggart:

Did you ever think of adding blinks? Did you try that? It’s basically Walter Murch come to life, the blink of the eyes when you change your ideas and stuff, so he’d look at something else. I don’t know, it just occurred to me watching this stuff.

 

Thorben Bieger:

We did tamper with that a little bit, like creating sort of  an aperture closing on … I mean there was hope of a third season. Because another thing we really wanted to do was kind of a VR version of this show. That would be a little more going back into the territory of Warners, but it definitely a show that could lend itself to a VR experiment.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Kim, do you want to do another?

 

Kim McTaggart:

I’ll do a clip. This is a show, it’s called Seed, did two seasons of it, 2013, ’14 or something like that. Seed is about a gentleman, you see him on the thumbnail there, who was a sperm donor and all his sperm donor families are starting to … They found out who the dad was. So they’re all connected now. He and three other families are connected because he’s sperm dad. So that’s the setup.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the cool thing about this show was it was the first time I had ever used ScriptSync on a comedy show, which is where it just shines. I had used it on a feature just a few months before I did here, a feature that was half oner so it was still fun to have ScriptSync but it wasn?t?it didn’t utilize it to its fullest capacity. Whereas a comedy is just built. Script sync is just built for comedies where you’re line by lining everything just trying to find the funniest read on everything.



Kim McTaggart:

Script sync is just fabulous. So what we’re going to do is I’ll show you the clip and then I’m going to, because I’m a digital hoarder, I have all my projects and footage and everything from this seven-year-old show and my script. So we’ll just do a little screen share and I’ll just give you a quick little rundown of kind of how that’s set up.

 

Speaker 22:

Mild salsa, no, I can’t celebrate Father’s Day with this. Father’s Day is all about Zing.

 

Speaker 23:

Not going to happen.

 

Speaker 22:

Oh, hot salsa is happening.

 

Speaker 23:

Harry, Father’s Day is my time with Billy. It’s a tradition.

 

Speaker 22:

Yeah, that was before I came along. Now I can take over. You’re welcome.

 

Speaker 23:

I’m not losing this to our anonymous sperm donor. What part of Father’s Day is mine do you not understand?

 

Speaker 22:

The father part.

 

Speaker 24:

But Father’s Day is like Christmas to Michelle.

 

Speaker 22:

Fine. Then I can have Christmas.

 

Speaker 24:

But Christmas is my Halloween.

 

Speaker 22:

Okay. If you give me this, then you can have half of St Patrick’s Day and all of black history month.

 

Speaker 23:

No, I’m keeping Father’s Day. You can have Groundhog Day.

 

Speaker 24:

But Groundhog Day is my New Year?s.

 

Speaker 22:

What am I supposed to do for Father’s Day then?

 

Speaker 25:

This is the official agenda of our co Father’s Day this Sunday honored guests, Jonathan and Harry.

 

Speaker 22:

Well, at least someone wants to give me a Father’s Day. And I got us matching Father’s Day t-shirts

 

Speaker 23:

I’m with my princess.

 

Speaker 24:

Aw, my two gay dads.

 

Speaker 22:

It’ll work better with Anna between us.

 

Speaker 23:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

 

Speaker 24:

I’m not wearing this.

 

Speaker 23:

But it’s such a good example of proper apostrophe usage. Fine, you don’t have to join us.



Speaker 24:

It’s Father’s Day.

 

Speaker 23:

It’s not Daughter’s Day.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Oh, that’s good.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So yeah, this was the first time I had ever used ScriptSync, which means I did not use any bins at all, I strictly used my script. It’s a great thing to use, it just means you have to have an assistant who will lay all this up for you. But the assistant I had on this show got so good at it. He was so fast, it was done in no time. And the time he took to do it, I would take that time tenfold I felt.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Where it really paid off is when I had directors and producers in the room and I could so easily go to every take, every line and do, for instance Father’s Day is like Christmas to Michelle, there it is, I could just go across and we could listen to every take. Because on the show, well, any show, I’ll do a lot of audio switching too. So I’ll keep the picture the same and I’ll swap out the audio so we just listen through every take.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So yeah, so now I rarely work without this. Even on a low budget show, if I don’t have an assistant I will take the time and do it myself because I really feel like it pays off in the end.

 

Amanda Mitro:

That’s really cool. And how how long has ScriptSync been an-

 

Kim McTaggart:

Been an Avid? It’s been an Avid since I can remember, for like 15 years. It had been in there even before it had voice recognition, you could still ScriptSync but you would have to kind of manually put where things are or it would kind a guess. The beginning is here, the end is here so halfway through must be there, and it would guess where things were, interpolate, if you will.

 

Kim McTaggart:

But now it has a voice recognition and it just literally recognizes the voices and creates the nodes of where everything is. So it doesn’t work on all shows. If you’re on a location with really noisy background, the voice recognition is tough to deal with, but the assistant can still manually do nodes so you can still use it. But on a show like this where it’s in studio with perfectly clean sound it works impeccably.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And it’s also great for your documentary editors out there. I shouldn’t say I just started using it. I used it way back in documentary. Whenever you have a transcript, this is brilliant for transcripts. If you have an hour and a half interview, you just lay that in there and you can just go to any word in your interview easily. So that’s where I really first started using it.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So I’ve been using it a lot longer than 2014, but that’s when I started using it pretty much exclusively now on dramatic shows too. Unless the assistant gets all grouchy and doesn’t want to do it and says they don’t have time and all that stuff. But really once you get used to doing it, it goes pretty quickly.

 

Amanda Mitro:

I guess that’s another tip for aspiring assistants, don’t be grouchy.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Don’t be grouchy and learn ScriptSync. Oh, somebody is asking how you cut with ScriptSync. Just like multicam. Oh, I’m sorry, I should have had that up there. I don’t cut it like a multicam show in the multicam mode. If you know Avid, it has a multicam mode. There’s no real advantage to that unless you have more than four cameras. No, I’ll just cut regularly.

 

Kim McTaggart:

But then even when the shot is sitting on your timeline, you can flip through and you can easily change it. And then whenever I have my shots in the source monitor, I usually have both shots up. It always surprises me how many people don’t use ScriptSync, like shows that do have lots of assistants and the ability to use it don’t use it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

[inaudible 01:07:17]. It’s learning a new thing.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the other, just because we’re talking a little geeking out now, another feature a lot of people I find don’t use which I use all the time is the blue button. Do you use the blue button all the time, Thorben?

 

Thorben Bieger:

No.

 

Kim McTaggart:

No. See, I use it all the time, the replace button. If I?m trying out.. if I actually want to cut in a line, it’s easy just to play out through all five takes or whatever, but if you want to actually test it in your show, I’ll just land on a word in the middle of the take and then find that same word and then just blue button it in. It may not be exactly where it needs to be, but it’s quick and dirty and there’s no marking in and out and all that stuff, just blue button and boom it’s in.

 

Kim McTaggart:

So I use blue button all the time and it always astounds me that not everybody does. Although I know there’s a million different ways to do everything, and somebody probably has a much better way than the blue button.





Amanda Mitro:

Here’s a question for you guys, how does the camera choice affect your edit, whether it’s a, you know Red cam or GoPros or iPhone footage or all of that fun stuff, how do you guys like working with those?

 

Kim McTaggart:

It doesn’t matter. The only thing it affects is if it’s 4K you can punch in if you’re delivering. Well, now everybody wants 4K, so you can’t even punch in anymore. But it used to be if everything was in HD and they were shooting 4K, you could reframe so easily. And Thorben got into that more than I did. Thorben would reframe everything.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, it was a bit of a craze. For me it may affect more of the decision of what to work with. By far I work with Avid most of the time but there are times when I’ll work with other Final Cut 10 [inaudible 01:08:53] or something like that. And if it’s a show, for example, that last one that we looked at, Clay’s POV, that was a show that was full of GoPros and DSLRs, all kinds of different cameras.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There were probably five or six or more different formats. And all it was shot pretty haphazardly. The sound was on the camera, sometimes sound was on a separate system. And I found actually for that project it was quite useful to work in final cut because of the ability to just dump everything in. It didn’t even take a lot of transcoding on a fairly standard iMac to be able to play 4K in real time next to Canon 5D footage.

 

Thorben Bieger:

It really was useful for that kind of jumble of different formats. So, again, the camera choice might not affect. It would only affect editing, for me, in terms of perhaps driving the choice towards a different platform.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I’m pretty much exclusively Avid unless there’s a real raging reason. Like on the first year Call Me Fitz, I don’t know, Avid, wasn’t playing nice with the red camera. We used Final Cut Pro. Otherwise, no, I’ll stick with Avid.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Any recent trends in editing that you’re noticing like stylistically that you like or don’t like?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Well, there’s one that I’ve been noticing more and more. The first few times I loved it and now I haven’t had the chance to imitate it yet myself, but it seems like everyone else is, which is in particularly exciting moments to cut so hard on the last word of the scene that you actually cut off part of the word. I’ve seen it in comedies and in really serious movies.




Thorben Bieger:

It’s usually, even in a serious drama usually has a somewhat comical effect. And the first few times I saw it I thought it was really cool. It’s getting less cool with every video.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I still love it every time I watch a Better Call Saul, which is a brilliant show. I love the big slow master shot shows like that. But the opening theme music, they cut it off at the end and every time I just go, “Oh, I love that.?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Yeah, and I’ve noticed it in Handmaid’s Tale.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Oh yeah. Yeah.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And just the other night I saw it in Killing Eve. It’s cool but everyone’s doing it now.

 

Amanda Mitro:

Yeah, Brooklyn Nine-Nine does it too.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I still love a good jump cut. Nothing I’ve done really we’ve gotten really into jump cutting. I remember when Call Me Fitz there was like a rule do not jump cut. It had to be very classical kind of stuff or you could jump cut to compress time but not a totally visual jump cut. I don’t know, I just love a really well done jump cut. Probably it excites me because I rarely get to do them in shows. They just don’t have that style.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I just did a feature and it was full of oners and stuff and I’m like, “Well, we’re going to have to incorporate jump cuts into the show.” And they’re just, “I don’t know.” I just love them.

 

Amanda Mitro:

And overall, for both of you, what is the most fun you have on the job? What’s the best part of being an editor? What just makes you want to go, “Yes, this is why I became an editor??



Thorben Bieger:

[inaudible 01:12:20]. Temp ADR



Kim McTaggart:

Yeah, it?s funny, we were talking about remote editing versus all being together, and that’s part of it. We did lose some of the fun. It’s really fun to be together in one place and work. And the last time we did do it it was on Call Me Fitz, where they wanted us to make sure we had 10 PDR for everything. And we would just fill in crowd scenes and we’d have these loop group nights.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And Sarah who’s on the call was in on that. We had so much fun. I just love doing that stuff. And Thorben and I still do it but we have to email back and forth. It’s still tons of fun, yeah. He jokes when he says it, but it is. It’s tons of fun.

 

Thorben Bieger:

For me lately one of my favorite parts has been the very, very late stage of editing. Sometimes when you’re close to the first few rounds of notes feel really constructive and you’ve put together a piece and made something, you’ve had your chance as the editor to affect what’s going to happen when you start working with the directors and producers and writers to make changes.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Then it starts going to the studio or to the network and you’re starting to get note fatigue and you feel like some of the notes that you’re seeing are things you may have already gone through, or there may be completely new. Still those all really become sometimes a little trying to get through the later stages of notes. But in my experience they still tend to be really helpful or things you shouldn’t overlook.

 

Thorben Bieger:

But then sometimes very near the end, new ideas come up late in the game. But I find that exciting sometimes when you don?t when  late in the creative process you’re still open to discovering something. And often I find it involves taking something out of the show, taking a line out or taking even a couple of lines out that actually make a scene better by dictating too clearly what someone is thinking or by letting facial expressions say something rather than dialogue.

 

Thorben Bieger:

When that’s happening later in the process I feel like you’re making changes that can have a gigantic effect on the piece and not compromising until the last minute. You’re still massaging or making changes at the very late stage. I find that quite fun to do.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah, I’ll agree with that too. And you’re probably speaking to a showrunner we just worked with who would … He’d fly in to picture lock. You’re pretty much done, it would go onto the network and he’d fly into picture lock and he’d come in and say, “Hey, what would happen if we took that scene out and maybe put it in the next episode,” or some really big, little but big thing like that. And you’re like, “Fuck.” Sorry.



Kim McTaggart:

And you do it and you go, “Wow. Well, yeah. Yeah. Okay. That’s great.” But I don’t know why he’d save those golden things for the bitter end. But yeah yeah you’re doing those all the way along at the end. And as Thorben says, usually it’s taking out. That’s what I find really fun too, is when you’re at the last stage and you’re going through it, and Thorben probably does the same thing, you’re looking for every line to have meaning or need to be there. And if it doesn’t, take it out.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I do that right to the end, and I find that process one of the most fun processes. And another one I worked with, oh my gosh, Rick Mercer, I’m going to tell tales, on Made in Canada, would come in and he’d always preface his ideas with, “I know you’re going to get mad. I know this is just crazy, but just, please, please indulge me. It’s really stupid.” And I’d say probably at least half the time they were, and I crankily do it and we’d go, “Okay, thanks,” and go back.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the other half they were freaking brilliant ideas, because all of them were like just totally out there, nothing I would have thought of. And he’d come in and do that and half the time we’d just go back and the other half it’s like, “Holy shit, that’s brilliant.?

 

Thorben Bieger:

Sometimes it does make you cranky because you feel like you’re so close and on a series perhaps you’re tired or there’s a lot of pressure to get things done. But I find more and more easy not to feel that crankiness at all, but to to think, okay, this is where we’re actually going to add you know 10% or we’re actually going to lift the show quite a bit with a few last changes.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And if someone has the idea and brings it up at that point, first of all, it’s probably a showrunner or a producer and you’re going to listen anyway, but it’s probably because they know the material really well and because they’re thinking of the series, of the whole season and the series on a bigger scale, and they also created these characters and they’re getting ideas, they’re inspired.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And maybe it’s something that’s been percolating in the back of their mind or they just thought of it right now, but either way, when those things come up, I think it’s really important to listen to them and to be optimistic about them.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And the other fun part for me, and it still happens is I’ll cut a scene and I’ll just, I don’t know, something happens. It’s just like magic and my heart starts to beat fast and I’m just so excited by the scene. It?s jJust so excited. It doesn’t happen all that often. I remember once it happened on Call Me Fitz and I was so freaking excited, I cut this. It was Josh walking through the jail.

 

Kim McTaggart:

It was a big follow behind why he was in jail. And I cut it to this particular song that I thought was frigging brilliant. So I immediately export and send it off to the showrunner, and I know our showrunner then, Sherry, no matter what she’s doing, if you sent her something she would sit and watch it. And sure enough, 15 minutes later … I was so excited, “You got to see this, Sherry.?

 

Kim McTaggart:

15 minutes later sure enough comes back and she’s like, “Nah. Nah.” And I was crushed. So crushed that I would not change it. It took me at least two times before I would finally change that music because I was so certain it was brilliant. But anyway, still those moments that make your heart beat fast. They’re not always nay moments, sometimes they’re really great, but I love when I feel that.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Music is funny like that because it is so subjective, and you may.. one person may just not feel what you’re feeling with the music. But another thing that I really enjoy is, and it happens on every show somewhere along the way that there’s just a moment that gets you every time. And it might be, whatever, it might be something that makes you teary or makes me laugh.

 

Thorben Bieger:

There’s usually something along the way that has the same effect on you every time you watch it. And I’m quoting someone here who said that, as the editor it?s kind your job to fall in love with the show, whether you like the show or not or whether it’s your kind of show. It might not be the thing that you watch on your own free time, but it’s your job to fall in love with the material, to make it?just to make it as good as it can be and to fully invest yourself in that show.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And usually what happens to me is that when you go into it with that approach you start to like the characters and you start to care more about it. And when the actor has a really good scene you feel it much more, and I think it just contributes in general to one’s whole approach to the rest of the show when you say this is going to be good as good as it can get.

 

Kim McTaggart:

I mouth the words. I get so invested in them when I watch those scenes you were talking about, I’ll see my lips moving and I’m saying their words because I’m so excited for them. It’s funny. Somebody asked me once, working on the show so long, do you get so sick of them like you never want to see them again and you’re glad they’re out the door?

 

Kim McTaggart:

And I can honestly say no. At the end of every show I’m done, I’m still usually madly in love with it. I mean I might be a little tired and be glad to be moving on to the next one, but no, I fall in love with them all even if I didn’t think I would or wasn’t in the beginning. By the time I’m done I know them all so deeply and have such a vested interest in them and I always love it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And you notice it when you watch it five years later or whatever, because you spend so much time preoccupied with things that you see as problems or things that you want to fix that the parts that are good, the parts that don’t need that tension are easy to just … You take them for granted. They no longer affect you. For me, the closer I come to the end, the more I need feedback and the more I need to figure out ways to reset my own perception of it or to rely on other people’s feedback to work on it.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And it becomes a fairly microscopic process. And it does take some time to see it with fresh eyes, sometimes years. And there is a feeling. For me sometimes when I look at something that I worked on a long time ago, I often feel much better about it than I did, right at the end. But then suddenly I also remember the sandwich I ate that day. It’s all bundled together.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I remember I had a, whatever, a meatloaf sandwich from the Italian market that they were working on that scene and the memories are … I don’t think those associations ever completely go away. You never get to see it for the first time again, I guess.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Yeah.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right, it looks like we have time for one more question. Didier Kennel has one, what will the editing and industry be like five years from now? What would you prepare for now to be viable then?

 

Kim McTaggart:

You know what, I don’t think there’s anything we can do to prepare for five years from now for one thing. I think we can just roll with the punches and see where we land five years from now. But this whole new remote editing is going to be something we all have to get used to and learn. And I think that technology is really going to build, as Thorben says, these programs to help us do that.

 

Kim McTaggart:

They’re just going to take over and we’re all going to be working this way. But that’s still just rolling with the punches as they come.

 

Thorben Bieger:

I think the editing industry five years from now will be … It’s more of a question of what production looks like. But I do wonder the more remote editing becomes, the harder it will be to make contacts, and that’s a really important part, especially when you’re trying to establish yourself. The more producers retire that we’ve worked with in the past, the harder and the less exchange there is with people.

 

Thorben Bieger:

And together with remote technology I think it could make it harder to meet people that want? decide they like something about you and they want to work with you. You’re often told there’s an interview for a job on a series or on a feature, but again, that also often comes after some kind of initial contact through a recommendation or meeting that you had somewhere.

 

Thorben Bieger:

So I guess what I would try to prepare for in five years is somehow still being maybe networking. And networking not so … Well, I don’t know, maybe it’s all social, maybe it’s all social networking that you do, or maybe what sets you apart is some way of contacting people or making an impression on people in person. But yeah, I think that might be part of the picture in five years.

 

Amanda Mitro:

All right. Well, thank you everybody for coming and talking editing with us, and thank you, Kimberly and Thorben, you guys-

 

Kim McTaggart:

Thanks Amanda.

 

Amanda Mitro:

… are awesome.

 

Kim McTaggart:

Thank you to the CCE for hosting this event.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Great. Thanks everyone. And if you have any burning questions that you think of later on tonight, which I understand probably you may not have them, feel free to send an email or something.

 

Kim McTaggart:

And a shout out to James who said there should be temp ADR awards, because Thorben would be up for many of them. So that’s a billion idea. He says, hint, CCE, they should think about that. All right. Thanks everyone.

 

Thorben Bieger:

Bye everyone. Thank you. Goodnight.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks for joining us today, and a big thank you goes to our panelists and moderator. Special thanks goes to Jane MacRae and Alison Dowler. This episode was edited by Dennis Leyton. The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to Indigenous post secondary students. We have a permanent portal on our website at cceditors.ca or you can donate directly at indspire.ca. The CCE is taking steps to build a more equitable ecosystem within our industry and we encourage our members to participate in any way they can.  

 

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and tell your friends to tune in. ?Til next time I’m your host Sarah Taylor.

 

[Outtro]

The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member please visit our website www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

Un grand Merci à

Jane MacRae

Nagham Osman

Hosted and Produced by

Sarah Taylor

Monté par

Dennis Leyton

Design sonore du générique d'ouverture

Jane Tattersall

ADR Recording by

Andrea Rusch

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Sponsor Narration by

Paul Winestock

Catégories
Membres

Accéder au forum TEMPO

This content is for members only.
Devenez membre
Already a member? Nom d?utilisateur
Catégories
Membres

Rester connecté aux actualités & nouvelles des membres

This content is for members only.
Devenez membre
Already a member? Nom d?utilisateur
Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 035: Behind the Cut with Susan Shipton

The Editors Cut - Episode 035: Behind the Cut with Susan Shipton

The Editors Cut - Episode 035: Behind the Cut with Susan Shipton

This episode is part 4 of a 4 part series covering EditCon 2020 that took place on Saturday February 1st, 2020 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto.

This episode is sponsored by Annex Pro and Avid.

2020 EditCon Panel 4 no script no problem on stage at TIFF

Multi-award-winning editor Susan Shipton shares her vast knowledge and experience from a long career in film and network television. Susan has over 40 feature films to her credit.

She has cut eight films with director Atom Egoyan (including Oscar-nominated The Sweet Hereafter), as well as many critically-acclaimed television series such as The Book of Negroes, et The Expanse.

À écouter ici !

The Editor?s Cut – Episode 035 – Interview with Susan Shipton (EditCon 2020 Series)



Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by Annex Pro and Avid. Hello and welcome to The Editor’s Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We’d like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast and that many of you may be listening to us from are part of ancestral territory. It is important for all of us to deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met, and interacted. We honour, respect, and recognize these nations that have never relinquished their rights or sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions and the concerns that impact indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to a deeper action. Today I bring to you part four of our four-part series covering EditCon that took place on Saturday, February 1st, 2020 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto, behind the cut with Susan Shipton. Multi award winning editor, Susan Shipton will share her vast knowledge and experience from her long career in film and network television. Susan has over 40 feature films to her credit. She has cut eight films with director Atom Egoyan, including Oscar nominated The Sweet Hereafter as well as many critically acclaimed television series, such as The Book of Negroes and The Expanse.

 

[show open]

 

Just a warning that some of the clips played in this episode contain coarse language and sexual content

Stephen Philipson:

So, it is my great pleasure to introduce our very esteemed keynote speaker. She’s the multiple DGC award and Genie award winning editor behind many iconic Canadian films working in a range of tones and styles from art house cinema to historical drama, comedy and science fiction. Her films have been widely recognized around the world at film festivals and by little award shows such as the Oscars. Most notably, she’s collaborated with Atom Egoyan on all his films from The Adjuster , to his latest Guest of Honour, including the Oscar nominated and Cannes Jury prize winning, The Sweet Hereafter. She’s also worked with other world renowned directors, such as Robert Lepage on Possible Worlds and István Szabó on Being Julia, winning a Genie award and a DGC award for those films, but it doesn’t stop there. Her work continues on the small screen with Clement Virgo’s, critically acclaimed Book of Negroes, Nurses and Burden of Truth, The Expanse and the new Netflix series, Ginny & Georgia. Of course, I’m talking about Susan Shipton. Our moderator, Sarah Taylor, is the host of The Editor’s Cut. The CCE podcast, now making waves internationally. Yes, we have listeners from around the world. She’s an award-winning editor with 18 years of experience in documentary and narrative films. Most recently, she edited the short documentary Fast Horse, which screened at over 15 festivals and won a Special Jury Award for directing at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. Annex Pro and Avid are very excited to welcome-

Pauline Decroix:

Sarah Taylor.

Stephen Philipson:

And Susan Shipton.

Sarah Taylor:

Hello everyone. What a great day. I’ve been taking lots of notes today and I’m going to take them back to my suite. So thank you for that. And thank you for coming and Susan, thank you for joining me on stage. We have a lot to discuss, so I want to start just briefly, you went to Queen’s University and you took film studies and graduated in 1992, which means you’ve been in the industry for over 30 years.

Susan Shipton:

I graduated in 1982.

Sarah Taylor:

  1. I wrote 92, okay 82. Well, you’ve been in the industry for a while. No, no, 1992, but I’m assuming you have a lot of great stories to tell us. And I don’t know the full story, but please tell us about your first job in the film industry.

Susan Shipton:

Well, I did graduate from Queen?s University and by the way, thank you for that beautiful introduction. That was really lovely. Thank you. And I had made a couple of short films at Queen?s as one did and really enjoyed the editing process, but my goal was actually to write and direct. But I really loved editing, and I really loved what I learned about filmmaking from editing. And it was always in the back of my head that you have to be in a cutting room to really learn what it is to be a filmmaker. So I came to Toronto with all my film school experience and landed my first job slinging burgers at Toby?s Bar and Grill on Yonge street. It was a chain at the time, long gone. And in the meantime, I had a friend who went to the same high school as I did, who was a few years ahead of me who was working in the industry.

Susan Shipton:

And when I was back in Belleville, where I was living with my parents, he said, when you come to Toronto, I’m working in the business. So give me a call and I’ll see what I can do. And so I did, and he was working on a show and he said, I don’t know if I have anything, but you know. And I was literally in the middle of an afternoon lunch shift at Toby’s with burgers in both hands. And the phone rang at Toby’s. This was pre-cell phone, somehow he had my work number, I guess that’s what you did. The phone rang at Toby’s. And he said, and I answered it, put my burgers down. And he said, I have a job for you if you want to come and get this job. And I said, Alan, I’m like in the middle of a lunch shift at Toby’s with burgers in my hands.

Susan Shipton:

I’ll drive down after my shift. And he said, the job may or may not be here for you if you do that. So I actually handed my burger plates off to the other aspiring filmmaker waiter who got it. He says, Susan, give those to me. I’ll never forget him. He said, give him to me, I’ll take your shift. So I went down to Lake Shore Studios to pursue my first job in film. And it was as a production assistant on a soft core porn television series. I really want to emphasize that I was a production assistant, even though my first job was in pornography. And it was a for Playboy First Choice. It was called Office Girls and all the clothes had to be made with Velcro in them so that they came off quickly. One of my best friends to this day, I met on that show and I had the contract for ages and maybe I’ll find it someday.

Susan Shipton:

Because it’s wonderful. It’s $225 a week contracted seven day week. It’s wonderful, in black and white, but I would have to, as a runner, I’d have to do everything including drive the bunnies around. But I had to drive the tapes because it was shot on tape down to Mag North, which was this editing facility, which is now a condo, a surprise in Toronto. And I would go, I would deliver them to the editor and I would, and they had jelly beans everywhere. Cause that was in the days when like tape editing was the coolest, and that’s where all the money was. So they had jelly beans and cookies and stuff. And I just thought this was glorious. I would deliver these tapes and I’d sit with him in the dark room as he cut this awful stuff. Anyway, life went on after that, but that was my start.

Sarah Taylor:

So the snacks enticed you to get into the editing room?

Susan Shipton:

Large part of it.

Susan Shipton:

My friends know there’s nothing I love more than free food, but it was also just that, what he was doing was really quite astonishing, even though the show was so awful, cause he, I would sit with him and he would show me what he was up against lots of this stuff that we’ve heard today. And he was a great editor and just the quiet, and that he was working by himself. So, yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

So then after you had that experience, you decided to pursue editing and you became an assistant.

Susan Shipton:

Yes. And that was through another crazy serendipitous Queen’s connection. Woman I knew at Queen’s was syncing rushes or dailies, which was an entry-level job into a cutting room in those days. And she had two jobs, and the shoot fell in such a way that she couldn’t do one of the syncing jobs and phoned me. And I went in and did it. And the editor was Roger Mattiussi, who’s remained a friend of mine to this day, and he kind of put me in touch to quickly just go there. I said to him; I don’t know anything. I can’t get into a cutting room cause I don’t have a skill and he said I’ll hire you. Which was lovely. And he did. He hired me on a CBC for the record where I met Sturla Gunnarsson. And then I got on a documentary as an assistant Jeff Warren and that Sturla Gunnarsson directed about the UAW, CAW, which was called Final Offer, which was an extraordinary experience because the thing about the film days is that you’re actually in the room with the editor.

Susan Shipton:

So like on all of those shows, because you’re just filing trims, you know? And so you’re in the room with the editor sometimes in another room, but often with the editor on Final Offer, we were all at the film board and we would, I’d be standing there filing trims or sitting at the desk with the writer and the director and the editor and very much a part of the conversations if I wanted to be. And they were very generous about that. That was a fantastic experience. And through them I met Patricia Rozema. Roger was friends with Elaine Foreman who was Ron Sanders’ first assistant at the time. And I said to Roger, I really want to cut feature films. And I want to work with the best people, who are those people. And Roger named them. And he said, but there were three men.

Susan Shipton:

And he said, but two of those men don’t hire women.

Sarah Taylor:

Interesting.

Susan Shipton:

I mean, it was amazing, and it was like, Roger just said it like as a statement of fact, right? Like it wasn’t really, and so one of the only one who hired women was Ron. And so I went to probably an introduction through Roger. I went to Ron’s cutting room and Roger had also told me, he said, he’s the only editor who’s doing pictures that are big enough, that’ll have an apprentice on them. And that’s how you’re going to have to start as an apprentice. And then just to say, how I got working with Ron was I went, I met him and that was like so amazing because it’s David Cronenberg’s cutting room and that great picture of Cronenberg strangling himself and he’s all blue.

Susan Shipton:

And it was just amazing. So, I said if you ever are hiring an apprentice, I would love to work with you. And then I get a call from his first assistant, Michael Ray they were between pictures. They said, Ron’s just got a picture called The Park Is Mine, which is with Tommy Lee Jones. Would you like to come on board as a second assistant editor? And I actually freaked out because I didn’t think I could do that. I’d applied to be an apprentice. And I was just sort of, Oh my God, I can’t do that. So I went back home to Belleville, and I said, I’ll think about it, the biggest opportunity. And I said, oh, I’ll have to think about it. So I went home and my parents and my dad said to me, you didn’t lie to get the job.

Susan Shipton:

You didn’t tell them anything that wasn’t true. They know your experienced they’re willing to take you on and do it. And so I did, and I ended up then doing The Fly with Ron as well as an assistant.

Sarah Taylor:

Wow.

Susan Shipton:

And another little movie, little MOW Ron and I did as well.

Sarah Taylor:

Was there anything from your experience working with Ron that you still like look to now and when you’re working?

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, absolutely. I think, I don’t know. In what way, I sort of took these things in, but I even know Ron is one of my heroes as an editor. I think his editing is beautiful. And I can’t even say specifically, but just watching him cut and watching and actually weirdly Ron’s own inarticulateness about what he does, what was taught me a lot, because it was all about feeling, it was like, why are you cutting there Ron? It feels right. You know, and that really is where a lot of it comes from. And he’s just been hugely helpful to me. I have called him a couple of times when I’m cutting things and said, yeah, Ron, would you mind having a look and he’s come in and looked and helped me over the years.

Sarah Taylor:

Wow. What a great connection.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, it was.

Sarah Taylor:

Now, how did you get into your first opportunity from assisting to cut your first feature film?

Susan Shipton:

That was serendipity. Again, I had met Patricia Rozema at the National Film, but it’s all connected. It’s all these weird kinds of connections, right? I’d met Patricia we’d become friends. And I would go to her house for parties and Atom Egoyan would be there. And that’s how I met Atom. And one night at a party, I wore my coat backwards, and I thought it was hysterical. I thought it was like the funniest thing ever. And everyone started wearing their coats backwards. And I don’t recommend this, but people seem to remember me from that, Atom in particular.

Sarah Taylor:

Backwards coat lady.

Susan Shipton:

The backwards coat lady.

Susan Shipton:

It’s sort of like, I just think it put me in his mind somehow. But what happened with The Adjuster was he was looking for an editor. Oh no. I went up for another movie. I had quite a lot of experience by this time. I’d been an assistant for nine years and I’d assisted in foley and dialogues and effects and picture and I’d cut a short film and I went up for a film and didn’t get it. And the editor who got it, a man, was far less experienced than me. And he had to call me and ask me how to set up a cutting room and recognized when he was talking to me that he’d gotten the job from me. He was offered The Adjuster and he couldn’t do it. And he phoned me and told me Atom’s looking for an editor.

Sarah Taylor:

Nice.

Susan Shipton:

So it was kind of like, he felt bad. He didn’t realize that, that was a dynamic that had happened. And so there’s this weird, like theme of sexism that’s worked for and against me.

Sarah Taylor:

And then did Atom go, “Oh yeah, the lady with the backwards coat.”

Susan Shipton:

Yes, he did.

Sarah Taylor:

So you, you guys must’ve enjoyed your time working together. Cause you’ve cut all of his films.

Susan Shipton:

I was like the third editor, someone else was then offered The Adjuster and he didn’t take it because Atom wanted a co-edit and I was delighted because it was a big step for me. And I thought, “Hey, I get to edit. But I have the protection a bit.” I had no problem with it at all. So then when we started cutting it together, he acknowledged partway through the process we got on great. That what was actually happening was a more traditional director editor relationship. And he said to me, I’m just going to take an additional editing credit in the tails. You’re the editor. And so, yeah, that started a long relationship.

Sarah Taylor:

How has that relationship evolved over the years and maybe what is it about the two of you together that just works?

Susan Shipton:

You know, it’s almost a question for him in a way, but I guess what works for me is like, I’ve always found his films deeply moving and I’m aware that not everyone does with Atom’s films, right? There’s an intellectual kind of distance in some of the ways that he tells stories, but I’ve always been deeply moved by the characters also by the way of storytelling by his use of the camera. Like there are moments in his films that just take my breath away. So I think that I have a natural fit to those rhythms, but I’m also critical as well. So I think it’s comfortable for me. I mean, the relationship has evolved, but I think the big step was his, the very first film when he recognized that I was actually an editor.

Sarah Taylor:

He trusted you.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. And I think that from then on, we’d been on, but his filmmaking and his relationship to storytelling in the edit has really evolved.

Sarah Taylor:

You’ve helped make that happen too.

Susan Shipton:

Well, he does say. The one compliment he does give me is, he says, he shoots coverage because of the way I cut it, because he doesn’t used to shoot coverage. He was just like, string masters together. So I like that he says that.

Sarah Taylor:

So you taught him something, that’s good.

Susan Shipton:

I taught him something. Yes.

Sarah Taylor:

Was there any films, like obviously The Sweet Hereafter is a Canadian classic and it, is there any of his films that hold a special spot for you?

Susan Shipton:

Felicia’s Journey. I mean, is my favourite Atom film. There are those moments in Felicia’s Journey that are to me so beautiful and so perfectly realized. I mean, I also it’s one of the more linear–I did not cut Remember, that was Chris Donaldson and that’s a more linear one, but Felicia’s was oddly more linear. It had its flashbacks were more conventional flashbacks versus the multi narrative, which, I’m not saying that’s why I like it better, but it was different in a way. Right? And I think the discipline of actually staying in a more forward moving narrative was interesting for me. And I just, I love Bob Hoskins performance. It’s an extraordinary film to me. I love it.

Sarah Taylor:

And have you recently watched it?

Susan Shipton:

Yes.

Susan Shipton:

I did, and it totally held up for me. And that doesn’t always happen when I watched, previous.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, for sure.

Susan Shipton:

Older films. Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, I think we should get into the details of your editing process. So we have a few clips that we’re going to show today. Two of them are from feature films and then one television clip. And the first clip is from Burn Your Maps directed by Jordan Roberts. Do you want to set it up for us?

Susan Shipton:

Sure. I picked this clip because in, it’s really hard on these panels I think to talk about editing and show clips, because so much of editing is about overall structure that spans whether it’s a half hour of television or a feature film, right. You move stuff around, there’s the flow and the pace and things. And then obviously we’re not going to sit and watch all Burn Your Maps, but we’re watching the first, I guess, three scenes of it. And I love the film, but I picked it because I can talk about a lot of aspects of editing in it. These three scenes were reordered endlessly in the edit, just so that the first scene of the movie as scripted, you’ll see when you see it, was the gymnasium. And then the next scene was the drawing. And then I don’t even actually remember where the therapy session came, but it didn’t come as early as it comes right now. Maybe, maybe third in, but maybe further back. I can’t remember.

 

[Clip plays]

Susan Shipton:

So I should probably give a little backstory on what the film’s about. Obviously they’ve lost a child six months old. I think it was a baby. The family’s in crisis and Wes, the little boy thinks he’s a Mongolian goat herder. So it’s about identity and it’s about a family in crisis and believe it or not, it’s a comedy, dramatic comedy. So the scene that you saw, the last scene where he’s making what you don’t need to know at this point, obviously, but he’s making a suit that he wears. Because he goes to school dressed as a Mongolian goat herder. So that’s what he’s making when he’s tracing and doing all that stuff.

Susan Shipton:

In the first script and the original assembly, the way that it was shot and cut, is that slow move in and the gymnasium, is the opening of the film. And then what actually happens is that a couple of kids who bully him, pardon me, although they’re not hugely important in the film, but they do bully him. They throw that book that he’s making, those sketches, is they throw rolled up paper and he looks up, and he just looks at them and they insult him and leave.

Susan Shipton:

And all that. And he’s looking. That’s his sister in the gym, again, you don’t know them. But he’s looking and he’s isolated, he’s alone. And there’s all that activity around him. So that’s kind of the point of the scene and that he’s also being bullied.

Susan Shipton:

But a couple of things, the bullies weren’t that interesting. They’re not really germane to the story they’re props in terms of understanding Wes’s character. They had the first line of the film. They said something awful to him. And it wasn’t a great performance. So it’s sort of like, “Why are we seeing these bullies”? But then the challenge became well, what’s he doing? And how do we get to it? And all of that, and the director went to Mongolia. The whole film was shot in Alberta, except he went to Mongolia to get some shots.

Susan Shipton:

And that very first shot of the film is a real goat herder in Mongolia. And that kind of sound design that you hear, we came up with in the cutting room with the goats. Obviously we animated it. So you can hear it in that traditional Mongolian music in there.

Susan Shipton:

And so that very first shot of Wes that you come in on, you’re supposed to feel that he’s thinking that. That that’s what he’s thinking about. And that very first shot of Wes is actually the shot from when he looks up at the bullies. I have every single frame possible because of course he just looked back down or whatever he did in the original performance, but because of the performance of the kid, Because he’s a blank palette, so that the editing makes you think about what he’s thinking about.

Susan Shipton:

So in one version we then went directly, and there’s a funny story about that insert of the goats that he’s drawing, I asked for that to be redone because the first time we had the insert, they look like cats or something. And so they did it again and they still look like cats. It’s like one of those moments, like that doesn’t look like goats. But anyway, they couldn’t do it yet again. So we have him scribbling cats, which are supposed to be goats. So then we go off that. And then we went for the longest time, right to him preparing his costume. And that was a really beautiful cut. And I loved that. Because you started the music over the goat/ cat sketch and went right into his room and it was really quite beautiful and quite lyrical.

Susan Shipton:

But then the big thing about that film is that scene in the therapy office, because it is tough. It’s really, really tough because the performances are really good. The subject matter is really real. It’s really raw. And it’s a really tough scene to put at the beginning of a comedy. The beginning of any movie, but I think at the beginning of a comedy. So that scene migrated around the first 30 minutes of the film. It just kept moving and we could never find a place for it. And the director, I can’t really remember where it was scripted for us somewhere around where it actually occurs now, if not there. But as I said, it migrated. And the reason I chose this clip is because I can address lots of things about working as an editor.

Susan Shipton:

And one of them was the fact that people, namely the producers, really had a strong, adverse reaction to having that so early in the film. And we eventually realized that they had a strong or adverse reaction to a woman talking about a blow job.

Sarah Taylor:

Interesting. Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And a woman talking the way she was talking in a therapy session. Because if you really investigated their issues, that’s what it came down to. And I’m not even saying that, then that’s a cultural thing, the scenes tough, but that just put it over the edge for people.

Sarah Taylor:

And it was too real maybe or something-

Susan Shipton:

They just don’t want to hear women talk like that-

Sarah Taylor:

I suppose so.

Susan Shipton:

Because the evolution of the cutting of that scene, it’s like I was saying to you, it’s ended up pretty much uncut, right? The coverage on that scene, there was closeup coverage, there was loose AB coverage. There was lots of coverage. And the first cut of the scene, I used a lot of it, and the performances were gorgeous.

Susan Shipton:

Vera’s performance to me is just like, it was just a treat. For me, editing isn’t just about picking performance, but we’ll come back to that. So when we had it cut on coverage, the reason why we caughtened on to the real issue around where it was, was because the producers kept asking us for the softer takes of Vera when she was saying those lines.

Susan Shipton:

And in general, softer takes of Vera, softer takes of Vera, softer takes of Vera. That was the one, probably the only note we got on that scene. And then we started going, “Mm hmm, I think we know what’s going on here. It’s a problem with the content”.

Susan Shipton:

And the director to his credit said, “Tough”. It’s going early in the film. And we tested it. And I’m trying to remember what the response was. And that was like somebody was talking earlier about, “How did you respond to a test”? And I think people struggled with that scene, but the director that was part of his vision and it was going to go at the beginning and that was what he was going to do.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, I think by watching the whole film, it makes sense for it to be there. It sets it up and I didn’t react like that when I heard it. I didn’t think it was harsh, but I can see how that’s the case. So when they asked you to do softer, softer, was that how you got to not cutting much in it? Or was it just because of some of the performance, you let those takes just-

Susan Shipton:

We recut that scene and recut it and recut it. And to be honest, the director really became, obsessed is too strong a word, with getting that scene right and getting it the way that he wanted it. And I think in a weird way, I think that there was so much good material that I think he had trouble dealing with that, honestly. Because there were just too many options. And then how we ended up at the two shot. That’s one of my favorite compositions is a two shot. And the tension between the two of them is so palpable in the two shot, because you get the body language, you get the awkwardness and then you get the moment of her reaching for him at the end and crossing a bridge over. You get all that. So when you went out of that, you always had good performance, but you lost that geography.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. That chemistry. Because then even at the end, when she recoils, you-

Susan Shipton:

Oh yeah, it’s tough. I mean, she allows him to come. She warms to him. But as soon as she does it, she pushes him away again. And by the way, the end of that scene, he gets up and he goes to the door, and it’s beautifully written, and it was nicely performed, he basically says, “Yeah, what about me? Don’t you think I’m grieving for my child too? Just because I’m capable of going to work every day, and I’m capable of doing these things, doesn’t mean I’m not grieving for my child and you’re not helping”.

Susan Shipton:

It was great, but it was too much. And it was super hard because it’s not his film either, it’s Vera’s and the kid’s.

Sarah Taylor:

And Wes.

Susan Shipton:

And Wes’s.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, speaking of Wes, I watched the film, I thought he was wonderful. But then I was like, that has a lot to do with you too. How was it editing a young actor? I don’t know. Did he have much experience? Like he’s little so-

Susan Shipton:

Well, he had done Room. And I knew some people that worked on Room. It was the same thing. There’s a thing with actors. And I think it’s what makes some actors into movie stars. I think it’s just the thing and he has it. But a lot of times, I think that’s what it is with child actors. They just have a presence, a rootedness, you don’t feel an artifice, they’re just kind of are. And he has that. Having said that, he was tough. The first scene, real scene, where he’s with Suresh in the carwash. And he meets this guy and the guy’s like, “What? You think you’re a Mongolian goat herder”? And he’s a young filmmaker and he wants to film him. Well, Wes, Jacob Tremblay, was falling asleep through the entire scene.

Sarah Taylor:

Really.

Susan Shipton:

And it was the first scene I got. And he was literally, he’d be sitting there and he’d be going. I was cutting around like, “How many frames do I have before he closes his eyes”? It was like that. And then almost every time I’m off him-

Sarah Taylor:

It’s because he’s sleeping.

Susan Shipton:

He’s got the noddies. And the reason for it, the director talked to him because I was like, “Ahh”, the director was kind of panicked, but Jacob being a kid, he’s on set and they’re candies and chocolate and everything. He gorged himself and then had a sugar crash. And so the director had to say to his parents, who are great, they’re great stage parents. They’re hugely supportive. Had to say to his mother, like “He can’t do that. He has to stay away from the craft table. And he has to go bed at a certain point”.

Susan Shipton:

So there were moments when he was a kid. I mean, he’s a kid. And he would get tired. But that thing that you see in his face, when he was doing well, that’s what you got. And he had a big emotional scene, which unfortunately we cut out for other reasons, and he was good when he was delivering that too. So he did have it.

Sarah Taylor:

You mentioned, at one point when we were talking, that when you were cutting David Wellington’s Long Day’s Journey into Night, that you honed a dialogue editing technique. And I wanted to hear what that was.

Susan Shipton:

It’s something that’s kind of haunted me. I cut that film in 1997 and it was, in my career, aside from Adam’s work, probably the most important and influential thing for me on the way that I cut. And I liked to actually think that I don’t cut any particular way because I want to respond to the material and I cut in a way that’s appropriate to the material. I think, like I was saying about Ron, you go in, you just, you respond to the material. It’s a rhythm. It’s almost a physical rhythm. It’s like, “Where do you cut? You cut where it feels right”.

Susan Shipton:

But editing is such a process. So that’s how you arrive at say the first cut, but then when you go through it and things aren’t working, then I become more analytical about why. And I pay a lot of attention, and this is a tool of analyzing more than an approach to editing, I pay a lot of attention to when dialogue scenes to where I’m cutting between characters on dialogue. And who owns the pauses, so to speak. Like, where are the pauses played and there’s power in pauses.

Sarah Taylor:

Totally yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And how you play them. And again, it’s not like I do it a certain way. One thing that I do, and this was, this is a bit the curse that I consciously try to rid myself of, I actually have a lot of problem creating a dialogue rhythm that isn’t already there in the performance. If I have to tighten something up. Tightening something up is not a problem for me as much as loosening it.

Sarah Taylor:

Making it breathe.

Susan Shipton:

Making it breathe, because if the actors didn’t do it, I find it hard to cut outside of their rhythms. Which is not necessarily a good thing. I’m not saying that it is, that’s why it’s kind of a curse.

Sarah Taylor:

Is it because you’ve watched that footage and you feel connected to that footage? Or why do you feel like it’s not right?

Susan Shipton:

I don’t know why really, because I think, I think it comes from Long Days Journey into Night, which was a stage play and the actors had done it in Stratford, and they were well rehearsed in it. And they did dialogue over. They did some overlapping and stuff like that, but I would actually cut the dialogue tracks and fit the picture in.

Sarah Taylor:

Okay.

Susan Shipton:

And I will still do that. I mean, it’s, it’s interesting because, in reality, people were talking about doing a similar thing.

Sarah Taylor:

The radio edit.

Susan Shipton:

And, I will do that, but I do find sometimes it’s hard. That’s the challenge for me. I find it hard to cut out any of the rhythms and the natural things that people do with their faces. And when they’re speaking to one another. But editing is a process, so I can do it much more easily on the second cut.

Susan Shipton:

On the first cut, they have all those moments and those are all in there. And then I can go through. I think because Long Day’s Journey was such a dialogue heavy film. And I really, really had so much opportunity to really look at the effect you have, for instance, when you cut in the middle of a clause versus between clauses. When you lay a word over or where you pre-lap, and there’s no right or wrong thing to do about that, it’s just paying attention to the impact that had on the story, the emotional story you were telling.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. And you mentioned that you pay attention to the pauses. What is it about the pause? What do you look for? Is it a feeling? Or is it the expression? Or just a natural rhythm?

Susan Shipton:

The actors that I find the hardest to cut are the ones that do a whole lot of things before their reaction. Because you’re going to cut it out, it’s just too long. But then I find that there’s an emotional transition missing. This is another thing that I’m really big on when I’m cutting dialogue, is emotional transitions. In other words, if you’re on somebody and they’re angry or they’re about to cry, and you cut away a couple of places and you come back and that person is in tears, it makes it look like it’s bad editing.

Sarah Taylor:

You lose it. Yeah. You lose that emotion.

Susan Shipton:

And that’s one of the huge challenges because maybe it took that person way too long to start to cry.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, totally. Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

So now what do you do? Now you figure out a way when something’s not working for me again, I look at it and I say, “Do I have the emotional transitions”? And frankly, sometimes you can’t. Like in Guest of Honour, in fact, there’s this incredible performance by David Thewlis. And we just went with it. It’s just one shot of him. It’s beautiful. And a lot of it, I think was ad-libbed, but it was too long. It’s already three minutes. We just stay in his face for three minutes and it was six or something before. So we had cut out the beginning of it. And I don’t know if anybody else will feel it. Now you’ll all look for it.

Sarah Taylor:

We’re all going to look for it.

Susan Shipton:

But when we cut away from him, we come back, I feel that loss of a little emotional transition. And I tried to fix it with a breath and some sound effects and stuff, but stuff like that makes me crazy.

Sarah Taylor:

I love it. Let’s talk a little bit about performance. And you say it’s not all about performance always, but it is in the rhythm and that side of editing for you.

Susan Shipton:

Well, it’s funny because I often hear editors say, “It’s all about performance. It’s all about performance”, and yeah, of course, it is. These are great performances, but that’s not the only reason why that’s that scene is played mostly on a two-shot. It’s played mostly on a two shot because we would have lost the physicality between them to do it otherwise. There’s another cut of that scene, that’s good. And arguably, I kind of wish I’d been able to bring it, you could say, “Yeah, it’s better”.

Sarah Taylor:

There’s more dynamics or something.

Susan Shipton:

Whatever. There’s no one perfect way to cut a scene. But editing is a craft as much as an art, or an instinct. And you use what’s given you. And that’s composition, shot composition, sound, pace. In some scenes, actually in the one that we’ll see in the dinner scene, this is another thing that we’ll all often do, not just me, is I will cut to somebody two or three cuts before I really need them. Because that’s going to set up that reaction, right?

Susan Shipton:

If you’re on, somebody, like in this dinner scene we see, he’s just sitting there like this. I’m setting that up for when he talks. Because he’s like a time bomb. So again, if I want to see that emotional transition, then I’ve got to go to that person before I really need to. So well, “Why am I going to him”? Well, there’s craft involved there, right?

Susan Shipton:

And I think the same thing with performance. There are some good performances and great performances in films I’ve cut that are on the cutting room floor. They have to be. I have an hour worth of dailies, not every great performance is in the cut. And I may say, I’m on a wide shot here, even though the performance is in the close, I’m on a wide shot here, because if I go in close, I just don’t have any gas left by the end of the scene.

Susan Shipton:

And I absolutely think as much, maybe I’ll never work again after I say this, but I think as much about shot size and composition as I do about performance. It’s film.

Sarah Taylor:

In a lot of the films you work on, you have really great actors who give you a lot of really great performance too, so that helps right.

Susan Shipton:

Having said that it, I’m not going to use a bad performance. But it’s one of the things that I consider. Because otherwise, I think, yeah-

Sarah Taylor:

Well then all the parts come together. That’s the joy of filmmaking. It’s not just about that great actor or that great cinematographer, and we all collaborate and make it good.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

You touched on the scene, we’re going to see it’s a dinner scene from the film, Barney’s Version directed by Richard J. Lewis. Maybe tell us a little bit about the film.

Susan Shipton:

So this is based on Mordecai Richler’s book, Paul Giamatti plays Barney Panofsky and his father is played by Dustin Hoffman. And his father is a tough cop. And Minnie Driver plays the woman that Paul Giamatti has met and asked her to marry him. And she comes from a very wealthy family. So, Izzy who’s, Dustin Hoffman, is like a ticking time bomb in the scene because you just wonder when he’s going to really embarrass himself.

Sarah Taylor:

It’s so good.

Susan Shipton:

The challenge in cutting this was, for me, aside from the comedy of it, was to keep the relationships alive. Because Barney, Paul Giamatti, loves his father. He loves him to death. They have a really strong relationship. He knows he’s rough around the edges and all of that. And Paul Giamatti is such an extraordinary actor that what he’s able to bring to it is, he’s a little worried how this is going to go. But there’s also a protectiveness about his father. So I wanted to bring that in. And Dustin’s character just is what it is. But I wanted to try and bring in Barney’s response to all this.

Susan Shipton:

But the real reason why I picked this was not because it’s comedy, but I picked it because it’s a dinner table scene. And I just find those so hard to cut. They fall under the category. I’ve actually picked an action sequence for the last thing. And it’s in the same category for me, which is, scenes in which many things happen at once. Ay yai yai. They’re so hard. And I think directors find them hard to shoot those kind of things. And everyone’s isolated, except they’re not isolated completely because there’s continuity issues, especially with Dustin Hoffman on this. And then there’s eye-line issues.

Susan Shipton:

And so I picked it because I find them really hard because you want to get to everybody, but you don’t want it to be cutty. And so I picked it for that reason. And the other two reasons I picked it is, it pauses, it’s playing pauses, setting up jokes as well, setting up moments. And lastly, I picked it because I think it’s about stardom because when I first saw the dailies, this is Dustin Hoffman’s introduction into the movie, and when I first saw the dailies, I thought, “Really”? In a big theater, that’s quite a wide shot.

Susan Shipton:

You can’t even recognize that it’s Dustin. And so I thought, “Really that’s Izzy? Dustin Hoffman’s character introduction”? And then I saw the door open, I thought, “Oh, that’s where I’ll start”. And then I actually went to the door open in one cut and it was way too tight and I was kind of worried about it. Not that I wanted, a drum roll or anything, but I wanted something more than a generic wide shot of a mansion. But we screened the film in L.A. at a test screening, and Dustin Hoffman got two words out of his mouth, and everybody knew who he was. And they laughed before he finished his line. I actually think it’s a perfect way to start the scene anyway now. But I thought that was so interesting to watch that.

Sarah Taylor:

You’re like, “Okay, I don’t have to worry about that anymore”.

Susan Shipton:

That whole audience just rock for an American legend, basically, as an actor.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, let’s, let’s watch this clip. It’s Barney’s Version.

 

[Clip plays]

 

Sarah Taylor:

So great. And I even, I felt awkward watching the moment where you’re like, Ooh, okay, that’s good.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. The thing that I remember most about cutting that scene, it was really, really tough to cut. All the editors in the room will recognize all the continuity potential there to try and build all those moments. Dustin Hoffman did not know his lines, so they were different every time. There were more lines in the scene than… But the scene was just too long, so it had to be cut down. All the usual stuff that we deal with. But the thing that I’m proudest of probably is the opening with him, with his fork. Cause that’s the first thing you have to do as an editor is decide how to start. And I find that the hardest thing. And I saw that in dailies and I thought that’s the beginning of the scene. And it’s before cut, or before action.

Sarah Taylor:

Oh, he’s just playing.

Susan Shipton:

Well, he’s just getting ready. And I just was… And I thought, just keep doing it. It’s so great. So I took every moment of it. And then I had to put a sound effect in, cause people were talking over it, and I amp the sound effect, which ended up being in the case just cause, and then I went back, I thought that’s just, I got to try a few other things. And I started on the wide, because there’s an incredible tension on the wide you come in the room, they’re all sitting there. But I ended up back with the fork. Cause it’s everything.

Sarah Taylor:

It’s really sets up his character.

Susan Shipton:

It totally sets up his character. And that was Dustin. I don’t think he was directed and he didn’t do it every take, but he did it once, so I got it.

Sarah Taylor:

But you saw it and you felt it, and you snatched it up.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s great. Anything else about that that back and forth?

Susan Shipton:

All the editors know it’s really hard to talk about what’s not there, which is the work, right?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

But I think it… I don’t know when I’m looking at, I just, again, it is, the performances really are beautiful. They gave me all that stuff that we were looking for because… I mean probably Dustin Hoffman less so because he’s just being Izzy, he’s just being kind of outrageous. And although, he’s this lovely, lovely moment where he goes back at Minnie Driver’s father, but then he saves it, which is such a great character moment for him. He gets up and he gives the toast. It’s a scene that just kind of goes like this, and I just really like it.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. When you were working on films with people like Dustin Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, do you have, when you’re first looking at dailies, are you the young you who started, PAing in the industry scene? Well, now I’m cutting these big names. Do you have any star struck moments or are you just like, no, we’re going to tell this story and we’re in it and-

Susan Shipton:

Oh totally completely star struck by Dustin Hoffman. Oh my God. One of the films that was my favorite film of my life was a Little Big Man. And, I love Dustin Hoffman. He was… And when I got this, I thought I can’t… I’m cutting a Dustin Hoffman movie? The pinch me moment, for sure. And Paul Giamatti. And there’s another scene in Barney’s Version, which is a dialogue between the two of them. And it’s really beautiful. It’s really, really beautiful. But Paul Giamatti I think affected me more than anybody because he is such a great actor. Yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

When you came on to, maybe we’ll talk about this film specifically or whichever film you want, are you coming in, the scripts already written and done and your… They’re about to shoot? What… Do you get to put input on the script side of things? Where does your creative component start?

Susan Shipton:

Well it depends. I get, when I work with Atom, he has sort of layers of people he gives the script to at different stages, and I’m one of the early ones. So, I read his scripts quite early and give him input and then he will give them out. Cause he recognizes that people at a certain point, you’re not fresh anymore. Right?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, for sure.

Susan Shipton:

So I usually see early drafts of his. With Barney’s I saw… It’s produced by Robert Lantos and I was doing a lot of films with him at the time, so I saw a fairly early draft of that. And just, in terms of what I’m looking for in a script that I know is going to be challenging, and Barney’s Version was a great example of it, is subplots.

Susan Shipton:

And, Barney’s Version is a difficult book to adapt. The script was beautiful. Oh, this was another thing. The script was beautiful, beautiful script. It was 130 pages long. Right away, it should have been 110, 100. And they wanted to film around 110 minutes. And I said, Robert, you know, and he said, we’ll cut it down in the edit, Susan. And I should never have let him get away with that because that’s like you create a three legged table. Right? And the heartbreaking thing for me and Barney’s Version that I talked about killing children, I killed some children. It was awful. And it also left some of the kids that were alive, maimed,

Sarah Taylor:

Oh no. Those poor kids.

Susan Shipton:

And that, and I hate that. And I said that to the director and he said, well, Susan, I’m so glad to hear you say that. I really didn’t think it bothered you. I’m like, of course it bothered me. Here’s an example, there’s this whole… There are three marriages in the film. Right? And there’s… The first one was the one that suffered the most. And just because we… Test audiences all said it was too long. And they were right. So it had to be cut down. So, the first marriage, she’s frightened of storms, and there’s a big storm and he’s comforting her when they’re first married, he’s comforting her cause she’s scared. And he says, here have a banana, eat a banana, you’ll feel better, you haven’t eaten. And so she eats it and she peels it from the wrong end. And he says, why you peel it that way, and she said, I don’t know, I read somewhere that monkeys do it. And so that’s, I figured, they’d know. And it’s kind of funny and it’s lovely, right? It had to go.

Susan Shipton:

But in the end of the movie, Dustin Hoffman is handed a… Or Paul Giamatti, who has Alzheimer’s, is handed a banana. And he turns it around to be the way that she told him. And it’s so, and I love it when stuff is planted in a script that then pays off. Right? So it broke my heart that that set up for that. Now it plays. Cause you just think he doesn’t know… He has Alzheimer’s, and he’s struggling-

Sarah Taylor:

He forgot about bananas.

Susan Shipton:

With how to eat a banana. But it had so much more resonance. And there are a lot of moments in Barney’s that suffered that fate from my evil editing hands.

Sarah Taylor:

How dare you.

Susan Shipton:

How dare I.

Sarah Taylor:

When you’re in that situation where you’re looking at this script and you’re seeing all these subplots and can you, do you say, yeah you got to ditch it?

Susan Shipton:

Yes. People need to tell the stories they need to tell. I think that the method of storytelling through limited series is much more liberating. I mean, I love feature films and I love the big screen, but the subplots, for instance, in Barney’s Version would not have been a problem in even a four-part mini series. Right? So, I mean I think that’s a good thing. I mean, Robert Lantos made a film years ago, a Hungarian film, I can’t remember the name of it now. It was so long. And I remember, I didn’t cut it, I remember seeing the hour and a half version that they cut it down to. And one of the sound editors on it told me the three hour version was way better. And, but they couldn’t go. Right? And, so that’s a film as well that would have benefited by a longer format. So.

Sarah Taylor:

We’re going to kind of shift gears a bit. Over your career, you’ve worked on many different types of editing systems. Steenbeck, Moviola. Did you say K-E-M or KEM? I don’t remember that one.

Susan Shipton:

KEM.

Sarah Taylor:

Pic Sync, Avid, Lightworks. I’m sure there’s many others. And I feel like even now, and the technology we’re in now, the systems are changing at a fast pace, and we’re almost chasing the technology. So, how do you approach this? Or what are your thoughts on how we are always having to do the next thing and or adding more to what the editor’s role is in the edit suite.

Susan Shipton:

It’s changed so much in the last 10 years that, when I was, I cut on a Moviola, I cut KEM, we cut The Adjuster on a Cinemata, which is an old Italian editing machine that they were using 40 years before me. Right? You’re lucky if you’re cutting on the same software four weeks from now. Right? I mean, imagine that I was actually, when I started, cutting on the same… In the same way that editors started cutting on. Right? And it was, I’m not that old, it was like a while later. So the changes that have occurred in the last 10 years, and certainly we’re not the only people in the world experiencing this. And I say 10 years, because it’s really 20, but the incredible fast paced change to me has happened in the last 10 years.

Susan Shipton:

And as I said, we’re not the only ones. This is the world that we’re… The great promise of technology was it was going to give us more tools and a better life. And it’s definitely given us more tools, but it’s also made… Increased the workload hugely. And it’s my concern about editors is I feel like we have a lot of skills, but I also, and it’s great, it’s a matter of balance really, because my concern is that we’re being turned into generalists. That we are having to acquire so many skills at such a high level, because a skill with music, a skill with sound, a skill with writing, those are all talents that we’ve all always had to have because it’s part of storytelling. But I think the level at which we’re required to execute and perform all of those roles, I think it’s worthy of a lot of thought and a lot of reflection and a lot of discussion.

Susan Shipton:

I don’t know how you initiate that. And I don’t know how you approach it because as I said, we are not the only ones experiencing this in the world, but in the film industry, I think we experience it at a higher level than other departments. I think probably the department next to us who experiences these changes as profoundly as us would be the art department. But, how do you find a balance saying I can put some music on this, to I’m doing 40 to 50% of the composer’s work.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. I’m doing all of the sound designing, I’m yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And listen, it’s not going to become less because the technology is only going to allow us to do more. And I guess I think the other thing that concerns me is yes, we do music, yes we do sound, yes we do color timing.

Susan Shipton:

But we’re not composers, we’re not sound editors, we’re not colors, and we’re not seen to be. Right? So, when we do those roles, I don’t think they get the same acknowledgement financially, monetarily they don’t, as they do when the real people come and do them.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And, I’m not… I don’t want to be seen as resistant because technology does allow you to play with those things. It’s just going forward, it’s just your use of words is really apt I think, is, are we making the technology work for us or are we running behind it trying to keep up all the time?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And I think there’s a bit too much of the latter and less of the former.

Sarah Taylor:

And then do we lose some of what our skill is, which is telling the story and helping shape the story. Because now we have to make sure, okay, we got to fit an extra, however many hours today to make sure the color is all good so that whoever looks at our cut is not upset or… So yeah, it’s a discussion, when do we stop? And then also I feel like sound design and color grading and composing, those are all elements that make the film better, that enhance our performance, and enhance what’s there. And if some of that’s being taken away, then we’re losing some of that art.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. I mean, I really think, as I said, a supervising editor, had a lot of control and a lot of input over all of those elements, and as in the beginnings of the technology, when we first started working on Avid, there seemed to be a little bit more of a balance. It was like, ah, great, we can put some music on here, great. We can smooth these soundtracks. And now it’s like, you could broadcast this stuff out of an Avid, or there’s that expectation, you can’t… There’s that expectation. And I… The picture editors that I know, when we get together and talk, we either talk about the latest technology, or mostly they talk about storytelling.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

Picture editors see themselves as storytellers. That’s what gets them going. That’s what interests them, us. And I think to diversify so greatly is a disservice to that talent.

Sarah Taylor:

I agree.

Susan Shipton:

You know?

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

I don’t know what the hell you do with that, but.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Next year. We’ll talk about it next year.

Susan Shipton:

I mean, I do have some ideas.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, you can share.

Susan Shipton:

Well, I mean, I think that using the technology to more efficiently and in a more sophisticated manner bring the departments together.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

That’s what I would say. I totally get why a composer doesn’t want to do a temp track. Listen, I wouldn’t either. It’s a different part of the brain, right, if I were them. But I do think that, why is the music department-

Sarah Taylor:

They’re not there.

Susan Shipton:

Not more involved? Why has that become us so exclusively? When did that happen? I missed that part. Right? And I know why, because they’re not on generally – on most things I work on – they’re not paid to be on till later. Well is there a way to bring them on sooner? And yeah, we’ll have that conversation, we’ll put it on. But involve people earlier.

Sarah Taylor:

Bring it back to that collaboration.

Susan Shipton:

I’m really afraid that people don’t know how to look at cuts anymore without them sounding like they’re ready for a TV and that’s that ain’t going to change either.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. Well, speaking of TV.

Susan Shipton:

Yep.

Sarah Taylor:

Yep. You’ve worked a lot in the television realm, and the process is different. You got your time constraints with the actual time that is being broadcast, the time constraints with the schedule, keeping the arc of your series. So let’s touch a little bit about the process that you take going into a television cut, and then we’ll show our TV clip after that.

Susan Shipton:

The process is the same for me. Well, no, it’s different. On a feature, I have more time. My process on a feature is to look at the dailies and make notes and find those bits that I like. But, given, as I said, that I also cut with composition and rhythm in mind just as much, I do still make notes, obviously of that’s a great moment, that’s a great moment. But television is different primarily because there’s a lot more footage, right? Or I should say, if there is a lot more, then I have a different approach, whether it’s a feature or television. I don’t have the time or the attention span, frankly, to look at three hours of dailies and make detailed notes.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

I think that’s great if people do, honestly, I do, I’m not being flip, I do, but I don’t. So what I feel I’m obliged to do is make sure that by the time I’ve got that scene in the first assembly, I’ve looked at all the dailies.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

So what I’ll do is I’ll take… I’ll kind of scroll through them. I’ll look carefully at the selected takes, the last two, and drop them in and get a structure. Cause also and every editor is different for me, psychologically looking at dailies and a completely uncut scene is really difficult. I need to… I’m much better and much happier when I have something.

Sarah Taylor:

Something it’s daunting if it’s–

Susan Shipton:

Exactly. And I know some editors are really meticulous and that’s the way they work, but I need something. So I’ll get that together as quickly as possible. In fact, I have a word for it. I call them slappers.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah.

Susan Shipton:

And I’ll slap it together as quickly as possible, cause I know that at, on every cut, every choice I’ve made, I’m going to go back in and look at the dailies and recut.

Sarah Taylor:

You make me feel really good right now. Cause I used to feel guilty that I didn’t sit there for five hours and watch all the footage, cause I’m the same way, I want to put it down. You’re still going to watch it all, but you need to do something.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. I got over the guilt a long time ago.

Sarah Taylor:

I’m going to take… I’m going to throw that away now. Thank you very much.

Susan Shipton:

I’m not sure that this way of working is more efficient, however.

Sarah Taylor:

Well maybe I won’t then.

Susan Shipton:

I’m not sure, I’m not promoting it as a way of working. It’s just for me mentally, I have to have something to work from.

Sarah Taylor:

Typically when you’re on a series, how many episodes are you cutting? Are you coming in at the beginning? Are you getting your scripts ahead of time? How does that kind of work for you?

Susan Shipton:

Unless I’m cutting the very first one, I don’t necessarily get scripts cause they’re still writing them on TV. Right?

Sarah Taylor:

Okay.

Susan Shipton:

The Book of Negroes was different cause that was a limited series and it was a passion piece by Clement. And I did get episodes one and two, I think early on, with time to give input. Too long. Killed us. But generally, no, I don’t get a script until a couple of days before or whatever. And I would do, on a 10 part series, do two or three episodes. I usually do about two or three, depending on the length of the series.

Sarah Taylor:

Okay. Well we have a clip from The Expanse. Do you want to set it up?

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, this is like the dinner scene weirdly. It’s an action scene totally, and couldn’t be more unlike the dinner scene, but like it because it’s lots of things happening at once scene. I found this so challenging to cut the scene. Oddly, it’s directed by an editor, because literally everything happened at once. There’s… I don’t really remember what’s happening except that our heroes are in the outfits, and in the uniforms, you know them from The Expanse, if you know the show, and the bad guys are coming in the back. So the hotel desk is here, the bad guys are coming in the back. They’re also coming in behind them. And that all happens at once. And gun things happen.

Sarah Taylor:

And the biggest challenge I had was the geography, right? In order for there to be any real stakes that our heroes are going to get shot, you have to know who’s going to shoot at them and create that tension. And there’s lots of eyes going around like this, right? But because it all happened at once and they were in one another’s shots, it was super hard to find the air in there, to put it together because it was… I mean, all the editors know what I’m talking about. What I find, and it’s funny, I watched it again for this clip and what I’ll tell you what bothers me about it, but.

Sarah Taylor:

Let’s watch it, the last one.

 

[Clip plays]

Sarah Taylor:

There’s a lot happening.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. Yeah. There’s a lot happening. I mean, the thing that bothers me about the scene but it doesn’t bother me a lot, because I know I tried to fix it, is I need a master out there more often than I had, because to set the geography. I think, and I just didn’t have it, because literally everything … There was a master shooting that way and a master shooting back that way. I had them, but I’ve used it every single place I can to help with the geography. But that was my frustration about that scene. And it’s funny, because there was a fair amount of footage, but somebody was talking about it earlier, and my expression is, there’s less here than meets the eye. Once you get into it and you realize, oh, there really is only so many shots of Amos doing this, or so many shots of the couch, whatever, it starts to get smaller than it first appears. Which is also why, psychologically, I think I like to get a cut, because then in doing that, I’m also getting to know the dailies as well. But what I love about this scene is the music.

Sarah Taylor:

That was my favourite part.

Susan Shipton:

And that was… We had a music supervisor on that. So, that’s an old hotel lobby, right? And it’s got all these Caribbean kind of things, so I asked the music supervisor, “So can you give me some cheesy lobby music that would be in a Caribbean kind of thing?” And so, she sent like five or six choices and I picked that one. And then everyone said, “Oh, you have to put music on, you have to put music on when the gunfight starts.”

Sarah Taylor:

No.

Susan Shipton:

Well, they made me put music on, because I was like, why? There are guns going. That just is like, I heard this expression the other day, a hat on a hat. Why would I do that? And it was hard. So, I went and I tried. I got it from a John Carpenter soundtrack, and I put this music on it. And then the showrunner, who’s a brilliant showrunner, he’s like, get the music off it. It’s just going to be so funny when that gunfight goes and then dee de dee at the end. So, I liked that those decisions were made the way that they were made. And the zip and stuff. I would have put that in the first cut, Amos’s zip sound. And there were a couple of other sound effects, not many.

Susan Shipton:

And “The Expanse” was a fun show, because we had comp artists. So, those visual effects that you see of the tablet and stuff, I would have had those not right away to work with, but fairly early to work with as comps, or as temps before they were actually done by the vis effects people.

Sarah Taylor:

How long would a scene like that take to do your assembly?

Susan Shipton:

I don’t even know how long it would have taken me to do that, because I nibbled at it.

Sarah Taylor:

Right. Yeah. It’s a big one.

Susan Shipton:

I nibbled that one. Yeah. I would’ve slappered and nibbled it.

Sarah Taylor:

That’s good. When you’re in the throes of an edit, whether it’s a feature or a series that has a tight schedule, what do you do to make sure that you stay sane or healthy?

Susan Shipton:

Assuming I’m sane. That’s a huge leap. I think I actually like writing, and I work on short film ideas and stuff like that. But except for that, I do things that are as unrelated as possible to being in an editing room. I get outside as much as I possibly can. That’s just what I like to do. Play with my dog, gardening. Anybody who’s on Facebook with me sees endless pictures of my dog. But that’s just a totally separate thing. So, I think it’s whatever a person enjoys in life, you just try and do as much of that as possible. I don’t know.

Sarah Taylor:

Make sure that you still have a life out of the edit suite.

Susan Shipton:

But by the way, I think these hours that this panel was talking about in reality is just…

Sarah Taylor:

It’s long.

Susan Shipton:

It’s horrible. I just think that’s horrific.

Sarah Taylor:

Let’s make that stop.

Susan Shipton:

I have such a problem with that. And I think it is symptomatic of what happens when you’re expected to do far too many things. Because if you’re going to be expected to do all those things, you need more time. People are making a lot of money out of those shows. Anyway. Get off the soap box, Susan.

Susan Shipton:

No, I find that deeply upsetting. I do not work those hours. I don’t. First of all, I don’t. I mean, I’m working a show right now where the hours are tougher than I’ve ever experienced. I’m out the door by seven at the latest, usually. I’m happy to work later if it’s required, but a lot of times I’ll leave at six. Now, “Barney’s Version”, we worked pretty late. But generally, I don’t think that long hours are necessary in editing, and I don’t think they’re beneficial. My brain is fried.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah, I agree.

Susan Shipton:

We’re working on computers.

Sarah Taylor:

Eventually you’re just sitting there wasting time. You’re not doing anything.

Susan Shipton:

Well, I compare it to writing. And I know there are writers that work long hours, but not very many of them. Because on set, it’s a lot of… And I don’t think they should be working the hours they’re working either. But it’s a lot of hurry up and wait. Whereas in editing, if you’re sitting in front of an Avid, you’re editing, right? Unless you go to the bathroom, you’re editing. So, you know, yeah.

Sarah Taylor:

Yeah. This is our last question before the Q and A. What do you hate to hear from directors, showrunners and other editors?

Susan Shipton:

The thing that is bugging me right now is when people say “don’t cut, line cut.” Don’t… I don’t want to be in this edit on everybody when they’re speaking. It falls in the category to me of, that’s not a direction to an editor. What do you want to see? You know, and it’s about saying I’m not a certain kind of editor, whatever that is. It’s about saying I’m not a bad editor. So, as soon as somebody says that to me, it’s like saying, please don’t be a bad editor. Okay. You know, I just, I don’t like directions that aren’t useful, that aren’t really about storytelling, Right? And don’t, I mean, I’ll cut every single line on a character when they’re talking if it works. Or not, it doesn’t usually work, but you know, or not, right? Another favourite, unfavourite direction is “just fuck it up a bit”.

Sarah Taylor:

What does that even mean?

Susan Shipton:

I know, a showrunner says that, I want to say, “How much do you get paid a year to tell me, to come up with that direction?” So, I don’t like that. I’m not particularly fond of “just have fun” either, because these are all things that I’ve heard, and they aren’t directions. Now, having said that, sometimes you get a problematic scene and no one quite knows what to do with it. And they say, you know what? I worked years ago on a really bad children’s MOW and the director was a sweetheart and a very good director. And he was stuck with bad performances and his schedule and dah, dah, dah, dah. And he said to me, he said, “Susan, don’t ever say I said this, but just cut a lot, okay? It’s going to help.” And he was right. We just went in and when in trouble go fast, we cut a lot and I let him get away with that, because he was super smart when we were in trouble. But as a general kind of direction to editors of, you know, “just fuck it up”, not so much.

Sarah Taylor:

Or insert funky montage.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah. Oh, that’s another thing that bugs me, is no one shoots montages anymore, but they ask you to cut them all the time. What’s up with that?

Sarah Taylor:

You got all the footage. What are you talking about?

Susan Shipton:

Just make it a montage. Okay. Just because the director didn’t make it a montage.

Sarah Taylor:

On that note, let’s open it up to the audience for any questions.

Audience Question:

Hi. I was having an interesting conversation with a colleague of mine last week, about how filmmakers that don’t have lives make films about making films. And I think that you kind of touched on that when you were saying like, you should get outside and walk your dog or whatever. How does who you are colour your work, and how do you put your own little signature on things? What would you say your signature is?

Susan Shipton:

I really hope I don’t put a signature on my work, actually. Yeah. I feel pretty strongly about not putting my signature on my work. What I want my work to be is good, you know? And I think good editing serves the drama. I want, and I’m not saying I am, but I would want to be a person who can cut different genres, different types of films and adapt my so-called style to that. And that’s hard. It’s challenging, right? To do that. And I’m not saying I’m successful at it, but I think that would be a goal, I’d like to…

Susan Shipton:

This sounds terribly arrogant, and I don’t mean it about me, but I think the goal would be to be a good editor and have people say the style is good editing versus… And it kind of connects with what we were just talking about, is like laying a style or an approach over a project. I think when you go into something and you want people to feel you, that’s what happens. I want the story to be served. And sometimes the editing can be quite self-conscious to serve that, for sure. But it needs to serve the story.

Audience Question:

You were talking earlier about the amount of work that editors have to do and if other people were coming in earlier, and it reminded me of something I heard about “Joker”, where the composer wrote something, shared it with the director, the director shared it with Joaquin Phoenix, and that’s how he came up with that dance that he does in the bathroom, I don’t know if you’ve seen it, which is extraordinary. And so, it made me wonder about all of this technological change that we’re going through, and we’re still dealing with an industry that’s based on 20th century workflows. Do you see anything when you look into the future about how we might work better or different?

Susan Shipton:

I think that that’s possible and desirable, for sure. I don’t have, I’m not a technological innovator, so I don’t have that vision, but I sure hope there are people working and thinking about that, because you’re talking about “Joker”. It’s budget, because on bigger films like that, for sure they’ve got the composer involved earlier, for sure, right? And on some television series, even lower budget Canadian television series, I know producers do that. I think that what’s happened, and I wouldn’t say it’s our fault, but we’ve allowed it for it’s just happened, is that we have taken all of that on and it becomes increasingly difficult to divest yourself of those increased responsibilities as we go along. And I don’t know. And again, I’m not resistant to working with being able to take advantage of the tools we have and work with music and sound and all of that. It’s just a balance.

Susan Shipton:

And the other thing, I think it’s a terrible disservice to composers, because they bring something quite unique. And I’ve been around long enough, I remember when they hated temp tracks and they didn’t want to see stuff with temp tracks on it. Now, they’re kind of addicted to them, I think, for the most part. That was another one of my things I hate. I hate it when composers complain about temp tracks in a demeaning manner, because they’re a hell of a lot of work. And I think picture editors are taking a lot of the bullets. We’re trying this stuff. It used to be the composer that would have to try that stuff. And no, no, no, that doesn’t work.

Susan Shipton:

So, it’s just, it’s the balance. So, I think it’s a good question, and I think it’s where a lot of discussions should be going, because it can, the technology is not working as well. It’s not just a matter of lifestyle, but though, I think that’s hugely important. It’s also are we pulling all the best creative energy into a project through our use of technology? And I don’t think so yet. And I think the wrong people are probably controlling it, right? Wrong in that they don’t have that as their modus operandi when they’re developing technology and selling it. Be great if that’s what’s their biggest concern is, amalgamating stuff and workflow and quality of life, but that’s not.

Audience Question:

Have you done any directing?

Susan Shipton:

Yes. I directed a short film many years ago, and that was, it’s something that I would like to do, so hopefully I’ll be able to do it again. I came second in the DGC short film funding contest. Second was nothing. I know.

Sarah Taylor:

Try again, that’s what they say.

Susan Shipton:

I will try again.

Audience Question:

Hi, first off, thank you very much for the panel. It’s been great. I just, curious question, but is there any kind of uncharted territory in terms of editing that you’re looking to explore maybe? Just out of curiosity.

Susan Shipton:

Oh, that’s a good question. I hadn’t really thought about it, actually. There’s always… “The Expense” was a big one for me, because I’d never done that kind of work before. You know what I would really like to do? I would really, and it’s probably never going to happen for me, but I would love to work with a team of editors on something. I love, and it’s one of the things I really love about television, is I really love working with other editors, and depending on those people and the project, I love walking down the hall and going, “Can you look at this?” And I just think that would be so exciting to do that, to work on a big show, a big movie with other editors. Yeah,

Susan Shipton:

I did it once on a film called “Mr. Nobody”, and we had two editors. I was the second editor. The first editor was a Belgian, because it was a co-pro and blah, blah, blah. Anyway, he was the lead editor, but the director and the lead editor taught at the Belgian film school. And they were always, they were inviting their film students all the time to come and cut. It was a riot. I was sitting cutting away, and this young woman comes to my door and says, “I’ve got a cut of that scene, if you’d like it.” But it was so fun to have them around and to, I don’t know, so that I’d like to do, but I don’t know if that’s going to happen.

Audience Question:

Thank you for the talk and sharing information. I have a question about Atom Egoyan’s approach to filmmaking, and you mentioned this earlier, there’s an intellectual distance, and yet you wanted to bring out the emotional impact of this story. And so, how do you find balancing the two? Or do you… I guess I’ll leave it at that. How do you find balancing the intellectual distance of his approach with getting the emotional pull, if that makes sense?

Susan Shipton:

Yeah, it does make sense. Hm. That’s a good question. I think I just keep responding to the material the way I respond, and it probably is on a more emotional level. And as I said, I do find a lot of his, a lot of the performances, a lot of the characters deeply moving, right? And I think he does too. It’s just that Atom… Atom… As an intellectual construct on his work, he’s always felt uncomfortable manipulating people. I remember that from the very first job interview I had when I did “The Adjuster”. We’re sitting at the Amsterdam having beer, I’ll never forget it. And I read the script, and every time the scene got to the emotional part or got to a build, he cut away, right?

Susan Shipton:

And I asked him about that. I said, “I just kind of feel like you can squeeze a couple of those together, because we go here and then we go somewhere else and we come back to that scene, but we’d been somewhere else, so by the time we came back”. And he, and I still remember he said to me, “I just, I’m so uncomfortable manipulating people’s emotions, right?” And that’s where he comes from as an artist. So, on some level, but he’s also like, I know he comes from an emotional place too, because it’s there and I connect to it, right? So, I think it’s… I don’t know if that answers it. He has a whole crazy way of working we could talk about too.

Sarah Taylor:

Maybe a whole other panel.

Susan Shipton:

Yeah.

Audience Question:

I was just wondering how you deal with theme and subtext in a film, second layer stuff, second level stuff. If the film is, the plot is about one thing, but the theme and the subtext that the director is trying to get across is something else. Or it’s… I don’t know if I’m articulating this properly, but do you feel there’s a tension between the two when you’re editing and you have to balance the two?

Susan Shipton:

I don’t think, no, I don’t, because theme and subtext is not my wheelhouse. I’m all about what’s in front of me on the screen. And I’m all about how the drama is playing out emotionally, and the overall structure, how we can tell the story, right? And whatever kind of thematic construct someone places on it, or a critical interpretation of it later, is for them. Because, and it kind of speaks a bit to the question the other gentleman had too, about the theory versus the emotion. You’re always, always telling a story, always. And the story may be a person getting up and walking across the room. That’s a three part story. They got up, they walked across the room and they left. So, the broader… It always fascinates me when I hear people talk about the writing of a piece, right? And they talk about all those kinds of things you were saying. I’m like, “Oh, really?” I just thought she should be crying then, because he said something that upset her. So, you know…

Sarah Taylor:

That’s great.

Audience Question:

I’m just wondering, what do you like those director and how did director communicate with you? I mean, in the positive way. We know what we don’t like about what kind of director, but what do you like about, and…

Sarah Taylor:

That’s a good one.

Susan Shipton:

That’s such a great question. Thank you for answering that, otherwise we’d be on the record with my gripes.

Sarah Taylor:

Like, oh, she’s cranky again.

Susan Shipton:

I only had three little ones.

Sarah Taylor:

I’m just teasing.

Susan Shipton:

But for public consumption. Trust is everything. And it has to go both ways. And I think it’s very easy for people to imagine that a director has to trust an editor. An editor has to trust a director, because we are creative people and we do put ourselves out on the line. When you take somebody’s work and cut it together, the first assembly can be a gut-wrenching experience, right? And the great thing about having repeat offenders like Atom in my life is that there’s a trust there. And I know that, it’s not even that I can experiment or not, because I know I can, it’s that if he laughs, it’s not going to be horrible.

Susan Shipton:

I mean, I trust that he takes me seriously. I trust that I have that relationship with him, no matter what happens. And he comes from a place of respect with his creative collaborators, and trust and respect is huge. And so, what people say, other than please don’t say fuck it up, but what people actually say to me in terms of directing is less important than if, or editing is less important than where they come from. If they come from a place of respect, their direction is going to be better too.

Sarah Taylor:

Well, thank you so much, Susan, for sharing all.

Susan Shipton:

Thank you. Thank you.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks for joining us today, and a big thank you to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to Jane MacRae, Maureen Grant, and the CCE board for helping create EditCon 2020. 

 

The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to Indigenous post secondary students. We have a permanent portal on our website at cceditors.ca or you can donate directly at indspire.ca. The CCE is taking steps to build a more equitable ecosystem within our industry and we encourage our members to participate in a way they can.  

 

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and tell your friends to tune in. ?Til next time I’m your host Sarah Taylor.

 

[Outtro]

The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member please visit our website www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

A special thanks goes to the following people for helping to create EditCon 2020

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

the CCE board

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

Catégories
The Editors Cut

Episode 034: Timing is (Almost) Everything

The Editors Cut - Episode 034: Timing is (Almost) Everything

Episode 034: Timing is (Almost) Everything

This episode is part 3 or a 4 part series covering EditCon 2020 that took place on Saturday February 1st, 2020 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto.

This episode is sponsored by the Canadian Film Centre.

2020 EditCon Panel 3 no script no problem on stage at TIFF

This panel explores the mechanics of making us laugh–how do you take what?s on the page and make it land? From sketch comedy to sitcoms, James Bredin, CCE from Schitt?s Creek, Marianna Khoury from Letterkenny et BaronessVon Sketch Show et Jonathan Eagan from WorkinMoms et Carter will explore what makes cutting comedy unique and particularly challenging.

À écouter ici !

The Editor?s Cut – Episode 034 – ?Timing is (Almost) Everything? (EditCon 2020 Series)

 

Sarah Taylor:

This episode was generously sponsored by the Canadian Film Centre. Hello, and welcome to the Editor’s Cut. I’m your host, Sarah Taylor. We would like to point out that the lands on which we have created this podcast, and that many of you may be listening to us from, are part of ancestral territory. It is important that all of us deeply acknowledge that we are on ancestral territory that has long served as a place where indigenous peoples have lived, met and interacted. We honor, respect and recognize those nations that have never relinquished their rights or sovereign authority over the lands and waters on which we stand today. We encourage you to reflect on the history of the land, the rich culture, the many contributions and the concerns that impact indigenous individuals and communities. Land acknowledgements are the start to deeper action.

 

Today I bring to you part three of our four part series covering EditCon 2020. It took place on Saturday, February 1st at the TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto.

 

Timing is almost everything. This panel will explore the mechanics of making us laugh. How do you take what’s on the page and make it land from sketch comedy to sitcoms, editors from Schitt’s Creek, Letterkenny, Baroness Von Sketch Show and more. We’ll explore what makes cutting comedy unique and particularly challenging.

 

[show open]

Maureen Grant:

So timing is almost everything. Are there golden rules to comedy? How much is technique and how much is pure magic? Our panelists have been in the trenches on all manner of comedic shows from sketch comedy to sitcoms, and we’ll find out what makes their job easy or hard. What it takes to make it land and what it takes to make people laugh. Our moderator is not only a multiple award winning standup comic and second city veteran, but a gay icon and freaking national treasure Elvira Kurt. With credits as star, host, guest, writer, story editor, and or talent director on too many shows to mention, we’re lucky to have her today. The Canadian Film Centre is pleased to welcome Elvira Kurt, James Bredin, Jonathan Eagan, and Marianna Khoury.

Elvira Kurt:

Hello, welcome this panel of rockstars here. I am here today as a comedian. That’s my tie in to be the moderator of this panel. But I’m actually here as a fan of editors in general, but a super fan of comedy editors. So I’m going to do very little talking, because they have so much knowledge to share. So before we begin, I just want to set an intention for this panel, that we are able to access all of the important skill and knowledge and craft that these people who’ve worked in the industry for so long have, that it’s received in the way that you need it to. And that you’re moved to ask questions that will satisfy your curiosity if this is something you want to pursue, or if it’s just something like me that you admire, but could never imagine yourself doing.

Elvira Kurt:

So lots of, like I said, cumulatively an incredible range of experience is sitting here in different genres of television. And I know the goal in this industry is to work. And then it would be amazing to do film, because it’s a good long period of time or some sort of a series. But I would say the epitome is to do comedy because it is something that connects with everyone. And one of the things that I noticed in the descriptions that all of you gave in these clips is what a challenge it was. I’m going to start down the line. Just briefly say your name and then we can get right to the challenge. What makes comedy so challenging? Every one of your descriptions for the clips you submitted today, we’re like, “Well, this was a particular challenge.” So I noticed that comedy while it is super easy, editing comedy must be really fucking hard.

James Bredin:

I’m James Bredin. I’ve been doing this a while and did a bunch of Schitt’s Creek and a bunch of Little Mosque on the Prairie and stuff, but that’s Schitt’s Creek we’ll be looking at today. And that was a real treat because I had no actors that I had to work around. Everybody on that show was really solid. And the challenges were in the way the scenes were shot, where the directors were trying to push the limits a bit and it worked, but you’ll see that it’s not sort of just part camera and which makes it a little trickier to put together.

Marianna Khoury:

I’m Marianna, I work on Baroness von Sketch Show, TallBoyz, which is also a sketch show. And most recently Workin’ Moms.

Elvira Kurt:

Now, James had alluded to just the challenging nature of the shows that he’s working on. What makes comedy challenging for you?

Marianna Khoury:

Working on shows like Baroness, it’s just filled with so much talent, and usually the most difficult part is deciding what to cut out because there’s so much good material. And eventually has to be a three minute sketch and that can be really difficult.

Jonathan Eagan:

My name is Jonathan Eagan. I’ve worked on three seasons of Workin’ Moms. I’ve done a couple of seasons of Letterkenny. I did a great series of short lived called What Would Sal Do? Which was my first sort of TV gig in comedy. Right now I’m working in one hour shows, which are sort of the last two shows I’ve done this year are one hour series that are really a blend of comedy and drama. And one of them has a procedural element. I think I have clips from that one as today as well. So there’s a show called Carter, starring Jerry O’Connell season two of that. And I’m working on a Netflix series right now called Ginny and Georgia, which will be, I guess, hitting Netflix in maybe April or May. I’m not entirely sure, but it’s sort of a blend of comedy and drama. I can speak to all of those.

Elvira Kurt:

And so what makes cutting comedy, editing comedy for you so challenging?

Jonathan Eagan:

I feel like what Marianna just said is probably the most challenging aspect of it is, I mean, it really depends ultimately on the nature of the show, like when you’re working in broadcast and you’re working in a broadcast half hour and you have to deliver a show that’s 21 minutes and 49 seconds long, and your scripts are 34 pages long always. And you’ve got to find the balance between this… What’s really important ultimately, there’s sometimes in a scene or a series or an episode, there’s a bit of a push and pull between the gag, the joke, the punchline, the objectively funny thing, and the season story arc, what’s happening to the characters funny or otherwise. And you have to learn to balance those what’s really priority.

Jonathan Eagan:

Oftentimes it’s not the gag per se. You can make it work, make it funny, make it emotionally resonant if… Emphasis isn’t necessarily on the gag. And I just think sometimes it’s a scene by scene thing. It’s an episodic thing. One episode is smooth sailing. The other episode might be a real pain in the ass, but might ultimately be like a better piece of television. It really, it depends on a lot of factors.

Elvira Kurt:

Well, it’s occurring to me that talking about comedy editing really sucks the comedy out of… Do you know what I mean? Like it’s so technical and yeah, what comes across is so visceral, it’s something and really is. Let’s take the things that you’re talking about so dryly, because you know what you’re saying, it’s true, but you have to actually go through it. And that is part of the skill that you build. But when you watch it, you think of none of that. It’s just like, “Oh my God, that hit me in such a way that my reaction at home by myself was to laugh out loud.” That is amazing. So let’s start, James, you talked about the first night. Why don’t we go to this show that has taken the world by storm, Schitt’s Creek and go to the… This is the first episode?

James Bredin:

Second.

Elvira Kurt:

Second. All right. So by then, you’d already understood how it works.

James Bredin:

There’s two editors. I was… My first episode.

Elvira Kurt:

Your first episode, all right. So this is season one. Is it rare that you would include this clip? Because it takes some time to get on its feet, but you say that this shot in a verite style was, had its own challenges and you ended up being pleased enough with it that you want this to be the first thing that we…

James Bredin:

I don’t think it took time to get on its feet, I think it took time for the world to catch up to it. It was the way it was rolled out, because I think it was funny right off the bat. And it was a situation we’re actually looking forward to dailies every day to say, “Well, Catherine O’Hara and Eugene Levy.” Catherine was not only incredibly funny, but she’s incredibly professional in terms of repeating everything each take and every now and then there’s an outburst of Catherine O’Hara that.. The very little improv in the show, but some of those we have to keep because they’re way too brilliant not to.

Elvira Kurt:

For sure. I want to get to… Improv is something that I’m going to touch on later, but let’s start with this clip. So this clip is Rude Awakening. It’s Episode Two of Season One of a Schitt’s Creek.

 

[Clip plays]

Elvira Kurt:

All right, so you’re given all of that raw footage and then how’d you turn it into that goal?

James Bredin:

Well, you just got to go through it as you can see that when they’re getting out of bed, it’s very dynamic. Camera’s waving all over the place. And it’s tricky to find just… That’s all there was of though of the stain on the ceiling. And it’s just trying to make it in the right place and get it on there there long enough you can tell what it is. And of course they’re talking over each other the whole time. So it’s a matter of fitting in pieces of dialogue. And there’s actually only one piece of improv in there. One line is when Catherine says… When he says, “The bed soaking wet.” And she says, “Is it blood?” That’s that’s her. That’s totally improv, not in the script, but we kept that obviously. And then it sort of calms down when it gets into the next room, but that’s sort of like a verite doc where you’re trying to find your way through the waving camera in the wherever, and just hold on long enough that you can register and the story and drama and comedy, are there.

Elvira Kurt:

Do you take the material in its raw form, you watch it and then you’re already starting to figure out why I need the ceiling, then we got to go back to the ceiling? When does the timing of it come in so that it actually helps the comedy, because it’s soaking wet, is it blood? It wouldn’t pay off if we didn’t see certain things in a certain order at a certain pace.

James Bredin:

That’s kind of hard to answer. You go through it once-

Elvira Kurt:

You’re an editor. What is your process? Don’t bogart all your knowledge.

James Bredin:

… well, you start at the beginning of the scene and you have two or three different takes to start with. Some start on her some start on him.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay, interesting. So then the choice is like, I got to start with the wet guy. Do you know what I mean? Like what… Do you put it in an order that works for you or do you stick to the script? When do you override something for your own instinct?

James Bredin:

Well, I think you go with your first steps. You have to start somewhere and that can be anything. So then you look at that and you go, “Oh, okay. That doesn’t belong there. It belongs later.” Or, “That’s not really working.” Your first pass, just sort of get the dialogue in the right place. And then trying to sort of go back and enhance it, enhance the comedy and the drama. I noticed that there was little tidbit, because they’re doing promo for the show obviously. And they were on Jimmy Fallon a couple of weeks ago. And they were asking, “What was the scene that in the whole six seasons where Eugene was most uncomfortable?” And they all agreed it was this one because he had to get his hair wet and he’s really touchy about his hair. So this is the most upsetting scene in the entire six seasons for him.

Elvira Kurt:

Amazing and nice humble brag there James. They were on Fallon and…

James Bredin:

It’s nice having your work discussed on Jimmy Fallon.

Elvira Kurt:

Of course it is. Very cool. So this one is a train from Carter and… Yeah. Oh, smile already. Okay.

James Bredin:

I gave you a bunch of clips. I didn’t know how many we’d see. So yeah, I like this one.

Elvira Kurt:

I want to get them all in [crosstalk 00:13:10] yeah, you set it up, go.

James Bredin:

Okay. Well, they asked us to choose different clips for different reasons and sort of explain why, and so it’s challenging. I chose this one because it’s a strange combination of comedy and action. This sequence was directed really beautifully by Kelly Macon. And as most of you guys know, or many of you know, television schedules can be really tight sometimes. And to do something extra is challenging. So Kelly had a couple cameras, he had a GoPro and this is effectively a sequence. It’s the cold open of an episode of Season Two of Carter where Harley… It’s a little bit of my secret identity reunion, which is cool.

James Bredin:

I can tell you about that after. Harley discovered that someone is starting to kill themselves and he has to sort of chase down a train on the tracks and sort of a high speed pursuit and board a train, very dangerously and rescue this person, get the train to stop, except it’s not at all what it sounds like.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay, cool. That’s exciting. That was much better than what I would’ve done. All right. Let’s have a look at.

 

[Clip Plays]

Elvira Kurt:

All right. So obviously an excellent premise. But really brought home with the editing there. Right? Because there was absolutely no danger. And he could have easily hopped on that train. Tell me how you made this-

Jonathan Eagan:

[crosstalk 00:16:18].

Elvira Kurt:

… yeah, how you made this so good?

Jonathan Eagan:

The truth is like, it’s funny this sequence… So this is part of an eight minute scene. After he stops the train there’s a whole 200 between the two of them and it continues forever and ever until he gets them to step off the train and then there’s a sniper trained on him and then the opening credits start. And that scene was like 10 minutes on the page. Ultimately I think this whole sequence now in the cut is like five minutes, but we had to… The original cut of it, a lot of the train stuff didn’t change to too much. But then the whole thing as a whole was just really, really big. So I wanted to choose this clip because A, sometimes the premise alone does all of the heavy lifting.

Jonathan Eagan:

That’s a terrific premise. And Kelly had the great idea to include the GoPro, which gave it like, you don’t approach a scene like that like a typical… You’re not looking at it at the same way you look at your average comedy scene, you get to… I was lucky that I got to play with that as though I was cutting an action film as well and sort of use that shorthand as a means to cut it. And then by taking that somewhat seriously it can enhance the comedy of it because it amplifies how ridiculous it is. So it was really a lot of fun. Ultimately it just came down to making it shorter and tighter and so on and so forth.

Elvira Kurt:

So was the intent clear from the go that it was meant to be a light take on this genre right?

Jonathan Eagan:

To an extent, yeah. On the page I think it was like that, but I did… It wasn’t until I got the footage that I realized exactly Kelly’s approach. And then he and I had a quick conversation after that and it was very clear. But one thing I would say about this, this sort of added layers of complexity that train conductor that was really his day to day job. That was what he did. He wasn’t an actor. He was that guy doing that every day in that place. And that’s how he dressed. And so we had to… He couldn’t like… They shot the shit out of him to try and get him to deliver his lines. He never quite did. So all of his lines are ADR’ed.

Elvira Kurt:

Oh my God, he looks amazing. That guy looks like a star.

Jonathan Eagan:

Sometimes you have just a little thread that you need to pull on to make it work. And so the last shot of that sequence, he’s smiling, is just him looking at the director. We were able to manufacture it, such that he was trying to extort more money out of Harley. He had more agency. Whereas that wasn’t something that was a part of how it was shot. So like that was a little happy accident. Things like that really help. You never know you’re going to get those things, but when you do you try to use them as much as you can.

Elvira Kurt:

All right, man, you guys really downplay what you do. I get that you have to work with the, whoever’s sitting in the room with you, but there is still something about-

Jonathan Eagan:

You’re absolutely right.

Elvira Kurt:

… like your experience.

Jonathan Eagan:

The hell with it.

Elvira Kurt:

You know what I mean?

Jonathan Eagan:

It was all me.

Elvira Kurt:

Like let’s be real. You’ve got to be, “You know what, no, I know that we need another shot. We need another of the GoPro. We need another of the coupling thing.” Because there’s no tension in the scenes. Literally a child could stop this thing, do you know what I mean?

Jonathan Eagan:

I’m telling you this though, if you’d seen my first edit of that scene, you’d probably have been like, “Dude, that is five minutes too long.”

Elvira Kurt:

Sure. But that’s the whole point of us not seeing the first thing, right? That’s your starting point. And then you just start-

Jonathan Eagan:

[crosstalk 00:19:25].

Elvira Kurt:

… culling, to just tighten, to hone the comedy. And that’s where… The reason this panel is sold out, I’m sure is because this… It’s that intangible. And I think you were the one who mentioned it in the green room, that thing that like, how do you know the exact pacing that is going to put this over the top from just great premise, solid lines into this tight sequence that is genuinely hilarious. And then that beautiful found object of dudes smile because he obviously wouldn’t be able to do that on his own. Like you made it seem he was part in on it. Yeah. Anyway, that was great. Okay. Marianna is going to talk to us about the Baroness. I definitely let you set it up, but I will… Full disclosure, I’ve worked on the show. So I’ve seen a lot of the sketches in all these clips.

Elvira Kurt:

I was there for some of them at the idea stage and then to see what the finished product looks like. I mean, that’s always the fun of watching Baroness is where it ended up in a script, what it looks like. And especially this one, which is a Meredith clip because you can’t actually write down all the things Meredith is going to do once she’s allowed to… The free reign with her physicality. And because they’re all equally in their own way, each of the Baronesses is also really adept at physicality. The fact that they’re all in the scene and commenting on someone that it must on some level bring up some insecurities or jealousy that someone is getting a moment to shine when you know that your version of that would be just as good, not the same, but just as good.

Elvira Kurt:

But you have to sort of play either the straight man or the second banana to this person, who’s getting to cut loose. And the fact that they’re there and then all the little lines that they’re doing, I don’t know how much of that was ad-lib, but that is… All of those ad-lib lines are coming from that place of, “There goes Meredith.” You know what I mean? Like it’s a mixture of generous and admiration and also a little bit of, I wish that was me. Like it can’t not be as a performer. All right. What else can you tell us about this clip?

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. Also it’s a commitment to being a background character in a sketch that someone is the lead in and they’ll go as far as like creating crazy backstories for a background character that might not even be getting a closeup in the scene and they’re committing so much. And it’s so hard to cut that stuff out because ultimately it doesn’t always pay to the storytelling and you have to lose some of it, but it’s so amazing what they all give.

Elvira Kurt:

It’s true. And a lot of that has to do with the hair and then the wardrobe, right? You put someone in something and a character comes out that they may not have even had in mind until they are getting to be in that character. So it’s different than these other two shows where you have these set characters and that you get to work and grow, and stretch them out and make them flex different muscles. In your work it’s particularly challenging because there are always different. And then as you say, because they’re each of them so into their craft, they’re adding these weird backstories that you don’t make… That nobody would even notice or care about. All right. So this is an excellent clip. She Did It. It is really good. I can’t wait to hear how you’ve made this come to life. All right. Let’s have a look.

 

[Clip Plays]

Elvira Kurt:

Where do you begin?

Marianna Khoury:

Well, Meredith is a nut and she goes crazy. And there’s so many options in the edit. And usually on these kinds of physical sketches, we’re editing them for a long time. It’s really just grading a selects timeline and picking out all of your favourite stuff and going from there. A lot of it’s just instinct and feeling and watching absolutely everything they do, and just choosing what makes you laugh and hoping that that’s the right choice.

Elvira Kurt:

So there’s one shot of the whole scene so that you have everyone in it. And then do they actually shoot it enough times to get an isolated shot on everybody?

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. Alicia Young directed this one and it was amazing. So it’s a lot of like roaming cameras to pick up that stuff. So once they go through it in a wide, they kind of can feel the pacing and know… It’s like a call and response kind of thing.

Elvira Kurt:

Besides the literal call and response.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. All right. So it’s so frenetic and the fact that the show, unlike with the more structured half hour or hour length, you have a time, the entire episode is 21, 22 minutes?

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah, 21:15.

Elvira Kurt:

So the running order for each show, how do you know that this scene or skit or sketch is going to be three minutes long? Like, because you said that it’s so much longer, what was the original?

Marianna Khoury:

Probably the assembly I sent her it would have been like seven minutes or something.

Elvira Kurt:

And typically there, because I know they shoot things and write things specifically for blackouts less than a minute. So this is obviously a longer scene, but nothing is beyond three, four? It depends.

Marianna Khoury:

Four and a half.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. And the sketches they never exist in within an episode until picture lock. So when we start editing, you can just pick a sketch. There’s like three to four editors and we just get to pick whatever we’re in the mood for, and whatever’s been shot and just start cutting. And those sketches exist as solo sketches up until picture lock. So during the picture lock process is when the Baronesses and CBC will decide on the running order and what sketch goes into what episode.

Elvira Kurt:

And then who are you sitting with? It’s not the whole cast? I mean, because they have an interest in making sure, right? Like this is something, this is true of performers. And so when you have performers who are showrunners, I imagine it’s worse. Because you know you can trust your sense of comedy, right? Like when I’m doing standup and I’m on my own, I am in charge of the whole thing. It’s very difficult to then hand it over even to the best editor and think that they can do it the way that you saw it in your mind. And no matter how well it’s shot, it’s still never going to be exactly how you thought it would look. So you’re already compromising from the get go when you have to sit with one of the people who’s in it. So is it everybody or is it just… Is this Meredith scene, so Meredith sits in on it?

Marianna Khoury:

Yes, exactly. So they divide it. They may be have about 30 to 40 sketches per season that they’re kind of in charge of and see-through from the writing process to the editing process. And then we have this cool thing we do on the show called All-ins where it’s all the Baronesses, the whole editing team and producers. And it’s like a show and tell day. So we’ve worked up to a certain point. We haven’t sent anything to CBC yet. And then we just get to sit down and be in a room with people, which is quite exciting because we’re just in a cave, and we just sit down and enjoy it. We watch TV and enjoy what we’re working on. And that’s one of the most important parts of the process on that show.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah. I agree. Like getting to make your immediate circle of your editing family laugh is immensely gratifying. So yeah, that’s a great part of it. We will talk more about all the things. We are jumping genres and styles, but I do want to move through it all. James, we’re going to go back to you. The next clip that we’re going to see is is also a Schitt’s Creek. And it will try to make sure that what we discuss in this pass is about shots. And that’s something that you singled this scene out for. This is Makeup. So tell me what was your feelings about this one or why you pick this one?

James Bredin:

well, again, it’s unusual coverage. It takes place in a trailer. If you follow the show, Moira used to be a soap star and a hasn’t been in the business for a long time and a local vintner wants to use her in his wine commercial. And she’s very excited, but she’s also tremendously nervous. And this is what’s takes place in the makeup trailer, which is very confined space. So the actual shots that the director did are quite unusual.

Elvira Kurt:

I know you can’t answer this. Why go into a cramped trailer when you could just recreate this set? I mean, I know that this is a Canadian show business. Probably someone was living in the trailer. So was on hand, but do you know what I mean? Like why put yourself… Why make it harder?

James Bredin:

That’s interesting because on this show and Little Mosque, Colin Brunton, the line producer, he likes to do all the interiors and then go on location. So the shows are big holes in your show episodes and the location for the shooting, the wine commercial was all location and they have a Winnebago and some of it takes place outside the Winnebago where she’s in there weeping later on. So I guess they decided that they were going to do it as opposed to building a little set thing they decided to do it in there at the trailer.

Elvira Kurt:

So they could get all the different shots, make your life easier, but nobody thinks about the editor. Do they? Nobody. You’re on your own.

James Bredin:

Do not think that was one of their concerns.

Elvira Kurt:

Shame. All right. Anything else you want to say about it or let’s [crosstalk 00:31:15]?

James Bredin:

Yeah. Well, it’s a real challenge and it’s different kind of humor of, again, she’s really nervous and Johnny is trying to control everything and it’s not going well, and well, you’ll see what happens.

Elvira Kurt:

All right. Let’s have a look.

 

[Clip plays]

Elvira Kurt:

So understated the performances there. When they do that, because it is so confining, them making themselves smaller that way, does it make it harder to find the comedy in the scene?

James Bredin:

I don’t think so. Their model was Andy Griffith Show where it’s all about the characters and-

Elvira Kurt:

Sorry, Andy Griffith was a show. James and I are clearly the same demographic, but I have the audience they don’t know what you’re talking about grandpa.

James Bredin:

Ron Howard was very young at one time.

Elvira Kurt:

Sorry. So it was like Andy Griffith, which was a good oldie timie?

James Bredin:

Yeah. And it wasn’t jokes so much as comedy coming out of the the characters and what they were doing. And they sort of wanted to keep it small like that. And it had to come out of the characters. And when she tells him to leave, go home, like just the way he’s, he plays it so well.

Elvira Kurt:

He does. Now, did you… And your choice of it, it was perfect. So was there another option and you…

James Bredin:

There might’ve been. There was multiple takes and it was tricky to play which shots are going to work best in the mirror shot and which were best going to work straight on. And then later on there’s singles on both of them for their intimate conversation. Again, the two little improvs from Catherine there the, “I know John, you’re very good at trying.” That’s not in the script. And at the very end where she says, “No, but please keep working.” That’s just her. And yeah. I just leave those in and everyone agrees that there’s no discussion. It’s like, obviously those are going to stay.

Jonathan Eagan:

It’s funny how sometimes those are the best things about the scene. Those lines are the funniest part of the scene.

James Bredin:

Yeah. Well, that’s her. She’s the tent pole of the whole thing.

Elvira Kurt:

For sure. And it’s often when the scene is meant to end, if you just leave the camera, there is that you’re in that place, you’re in a zone, and sometimes gold will come out and sometimes mostly not, but it’s great when it happens. Now, I also notice that when in the moment of the cheese tray, we don’t see Cubby at all. So you really just focusing on the cheese again, was this because you wanted to tighten the scene of… I found it interesting, person enters. We’ve never really get a sense of who they are because the joke is about something else. And it was all to just keep us focused on the two of them on their dynamic. Even Crystal, when she she comes in to be in between them. You know what I mean? Like all of it is a physicality that is in addition to what’s written. And that is something that you consciously chose to put together in that way.

James Bredin:

Yeah. I think that’s largely to the director too, because Jerry Ciccoritti did both those clips we’ve seen. There isn’t a shot of the PA. He’s a PA, so nobody cares about him.

Elvira Kurt:

Right.

James Bredin:

And that’s all… All you see of him is coming in the door, and the cheese. I didn’t leave anything out there. I didn’t have a choice of making more of his character and we don’t need to see him. You’re right. It’s not important.

Elvira Kurt:

But he even calls him Cubby. You know what I mean? Like to me, it’s sort of it emphasized, it was calling attention to the negative space in a way, right? Like this I’ll name you, but I don’t even want to see you because really it’s about the cheese, about the melon, it’s about trying to make my wife feel as insecure as possible. So it is interesting. I’m glad you included this clip because it is really small. And yet the comedy is never lost. It doesn’t ever go away anywhere.

Elvira Kurt:

Mentioning the choices between which shots to use of the mirror shots, and this is a question to all of you to keep in mind when it comes to it, is it your amount of experience that will dictate which call to make? Like how long does it take you to put something like this together and is it your extensive experience that right away, you’re like, “Nope, I want to see them from this angle.” Like looking into the mirror as opposed to looking through the mirror? Do you know what I mean? Because that will make it stronger.

James Bredin:

That’s sometimes it’s done for you in that they blow the next line. You [crosstalk 00:37:25].

Elvira Kurt:

You make the best of what you’ve got.

James Bredin:

Not that there’s a lot of that, but it happens. Sometimes you just stay a little too long on something, the energy in comedy dissipates. So then you want to cut around. Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

This is the intangible. How do you know that it dissipates? Is it you watching it? You’re like, “Nah, I’m not as connected to it.” Is that what it is? Like, what is it about… What about your own sense of humor affects the choices that you make?

James Bredin:

I think, yeah, it is experience and that it is that… Yeah, I feel it’s deflating, so I want to move. Could have done that as well 15 years ago, would not have done as a good job.

Elvira Kurt:

Practice. So it’s practice?

James Bredin:

Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

And making mistakes would you say, or trying it a different way?

James Bredin:

Yeah. And the director gets a bash at it and says, “That stinks.” And you go, “Oh, well, maybe you’re right.” And then Eugene and Dan are all over it. And if no one bumps on what you’ve done, then you’ve done it right. And yeah, it’s a feel. It’s a feeling thing.

Elvira Kurt:

Right.

Jonathan Eagan:

I think if you approach it the very same way you would approach watching something at home and deciding whether or not you want to watch the next episode again, or whether or not you think it’s working. If there’s a show that you think is really, really funny, it might… Oftentimes it’s pretty easy to explain why, but there’s an intangible there as well. And I feel like I’ve always sort of felt like it is hard to explain. I think that we all have a sense of humor. They all differ. Comedy’s very subjective. And the only thing I can rely on all the time is my own instinct. You have to trust your own instinct, whether something is working. If it’s working for you, it’s probably going to change 25 times anyway. But yeah, you just sort of trust that if it’s working for you, it is going to work for somebody else.

Jonathan Eagan:

And there is more than one way. This joke may change a little bit. This beat may change a little bit. You might try five different things and arrived back at what you had in the first place as part of the process. But if you can’t trust your own guts… Especially when you’re working in television, because the schedule is really tight. Somebody explained it to me years ago before I was anywhere near working in TV, he was cutting a one hour series and he explained to me at the time it seemed impossible.

Jonathan Eagan:

Much the way working in unscripted television seems impossible to me today. But you’ve got so little time sometimes that you just have to go into the bed and you have to say, “All right, well, I’ve watched the master of this scene. I’ve seen the coverage. This is what I’m going to do here. And I want a close up here. I’m going to go to this character here.” You’re just basically your first pass is really just the way you’d write the first draft on a blank page. You just get it down and you get it down in some structural way, because you have an instinctual idea of what you want to see. So I want this here. Do we have it? Yes, we do. Well, let’s try it. And then you’ve got your blueprint.

Elvira Kurt:

I hear you. But I will also say that after you’ve watched it 20 times, at some point, do you lose? Like, “Is this funny? I can’t tell.”

Jonathan Eagan:

You don’t laugh. I mean, you go through a period of time where you don’t laugh at all and your brain turns to jelly. And then as you’re like exiting the tunnel and you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, you start to laugh again. I mean, at some point that’s when it really helps for other people to see it. You know, at the end of the day, you want someone else to laugh. So you rely on your producers and other people. And if you’re making your show runners laugh and they’re really happy, then you start to better understand what it is they like to, because that’s back to that subjective thing. I might think something is hilarious and they might come in and say, “Great job. Let’s change it.” Actually that’s every day.

Elvira Kurt:

Right. It’s nice that they start with criticism sandwich.

Jonathan Eagan:

[crosstalk 00:41:09] criticism sandwich. Very important nutrition.

Elvira Kurt:

For sure. All right, Marianna, you’re nodding through this whole thing. Tell me about how your sense of humor helps you? Because it is the thing that’s entitled… We all think everyone in this room is smart. And if you believe that you’re intelligent, then your sense of humor is there, right? To me, the least interesting people are the ones that have no sense of humor. And I think they’re idiots. So given that we’re all starting from the same page, right? But then it is this subjective thing, how do you approach your work with your sense of humor?

Marianna Khoury:

I think watching live comedy is really helpful. I spent a long time just going to the comedy bar every weekend, and that was such a smooth transition to going to Baroness, because I feel like that show is really representative of the comedy community here. There’s this comedian, Mark Andrada who also runs lights and sound at comedy bar and watching his live timing of live editing comedy and improv, I feel like taught me everything I know.

Elvira Kurt:

Wow. Okay. All right. Well let’s let’s keep moving. Every one of you deserves a panel just of your own, just FYI. I’m among legends. So let’s move on to Nudists and this is also from Carter and it is a good segue from this idea of your own instinct guiding your editing process. And I wish this was something that we could just lay hands and all sort of plug in to the flow of how this unknowable thing happens, but you singled this out.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. I picked this one because editorially it’s very… I mean, there’s a rhythm to it obviously, but it’s really basic. It’s a two hander. It’s two people who happen to be naked, standing in a kitchen at a nudist colony, having a conversation. Carter is a bit of a metal show like Harley is a private investigator, but he used to be a television detective. So he believes like he comes back to his small town, was shot at North Bay, comes back to this town called Bishop for those who don’t know the show. And he just basically becomes a private investigator and believes that all of his experience on television shows will inform how he can solve crimes and stuff. And because of the magic of television, he is terrific at it. But there’s a meta aspect to a Hollywood aspect to a lot of the shows sometimes like an added layer on top of it, which is really cool.

Jonathan Eagan:

And so in this one, that was a bit of a film noir, femme fatale aspect to it as it began because this mysterious woman comes to meet him at a diner and tells him that her fiance… She believes her fiance murdered in spite of the fact that seemed like natural causes. So then he goes to meet her and she’s naked and she lives in a nudist colony and she didn’t tell him. So now they’re there. And so he gets his psychic Dave to get nude. He remains clothed throughout the episode, but Dave has to bite the bullet and be naked to ingratiate himself to other people in that community. So they’re like trying to find the killer and to get the information and they are at the wake, there’s people everywhere. They’re all naked, but Harley. And Dave is being hit on by this woman who he believes to be this man’s possible suspect’s wife.

Jonathan Eagan:

When an actual fact, that guy is an accountant for the mob who just happens to be in witness protection. And she’s his handler. So she has no business. She’s a single and she’s like really into Dave. And so the scene is just the two of them. Dave’s kind of like deflecting her, but what’s interesting about the scene is they did this little ad-lib that completely made the scene in my opinion. And we loved it and we kept it. Editorially it’s very simple, but it’s just a great example of how an improv can do wonders for a scene, elevate it.

 

[Clip plays]

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah, thank you. So the line that was the big improv was, he says she died in a fire and then she says, “Whoa.” And he says, “It’s okay. She was a horrible person.” And then she says, “Serves her right.”

Elvira Kurt:

As the biggest throw away ever. I mean, it was on an exhale and everything. Do you know what I mean? Like you could have easily have missed it, but it’s perfect.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. But that line to me was like the funniest thing I heard all summer. And I’m a weird sense of humor, I guess I don’t know. But I was like, “We have to use that line.” And they were like, “Sure, whatever you want, man.”

Elvira Kurt:

No, it was a great call. It’s just delicious. And especially because she’s moving in like physically, right? Like, do you know what I mean? Like there, “Yes. Oh so…”

Jonathan Eagan:

One episode.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah, it felt very claustrophobic just… And you didn’t have the luxury obviously of a wide shot? Like this was all…

Jonathan Eagan:

That’s true. There wasn’t, it was just the two of us. Well, there was the wide and the tighter one. So there’s four shots. Each of them has like a medium close and a medium. And that’s it. The reason they did that sort of time crunch schedule wise-

Elvira Kurt:

[crosstalk 00:47:18] nakedness.

Jonathan Eagan:

… well, yes, that of course. But there’s not even a two shot because this… Tight quarters and everything that scene as part of like, there’s like three or four or five scenes within different parts of the wake. So they go elsewhere, they come back, et cetera. So it wasn’t like, I guess they didn’t deem the necessity of a two shot… Well, no, but the nudity, of course yes, two shot. Well, throughout the episode, people are blurred. So just in that case, it wasn’t required but anyway.

Elvira Kurt:

And again, this follows from James clip. Again, it’s very tight and it’s just a back and forth.

Jonathan Eagan:

It’s an interesting thing to be both nude and claustrophobic at the same time. You feel very exposed and you know.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah. But the choices of going back and forth like that again, there’s that the rhythm, the pacing.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. I guess that’s a good example of when it’s really largely about rhythm and you’re just trying to figure out… It’s like a tennis match, you know? So you don’t want it to be too cutty. You’ve got to get the rhythm right. You kind of got to tune the instrument, so it’s in tune and then it works for you. I mean, it might not work for everyone. You know, some people might feel like it’s too cutty, but with comedy you can really get away with that.

Elvira Kurt:

Yes you can. But then you’ve also got that jaunty music to [crosstalk 00:48:29], does it distract you or does… Do you know from the cuttiness, say?

Jonathan Eagan:

Maybe I would imagine that it helps.

Elvira Kurt:

Or that it helps, right?

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah. Sometimes a scene can be just so much funnier when it’s played completely dry, but in this case, this a whole sequence that, that music sort of carried us. Because it was a bit of a roller coaster. We’re ping-ponging there, but we’re also ping-ponging elsewhere in the party and like Harley… The very next shot Harley and Dave come together, they speak. Kevin McDonald from kids in the hall was there as well. And then they’d bounce off to another part of the party. So it was all just a bit of a carnival. So that was a… We used a lot of actually Ocean’s Eleven music as temp through this series because of Harley’s sort of Hollywood background. And then the composers didn’t mimic it, but that was a huge inspiration. So it has that quality to it.

Elvira Kurt:

Cool, this idea that Jonathan wanted to include this clip because of that one great improv. You talked about your editing being informed by live comedy. But one of the great things that comedy TV editor gets to do, or an editor of a comedy of any sort is play with the genre. And that’s what this clip… Please tell us a little bit more about that and why this was a pick for you.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah, that’s the exciting part of sketch because it’s like full ADD brain. You just work on something and then you’re onto the next thing. And you’re you have new characters and you’re in new worlds. And this one in particular is really fun. It’s like a scifi genre. So you get to play with music and sound design and yeah.

 

[Clip plays]

Speaker 16:

You got to sign off on the speech from the UN. Yes ma’am. Are you sure about the translation software? Sure as wherever we’re going to be. This better work. Madam chancellor, Dr. Jones, we’ve made contact. [inaudible 00:50:18]. Let’s make [inaudible 00:50:30]. Greeting new friends. We, the people of earth are honored to be making contact with beings from beyond our own planet for the very first time. The most important message humanity can express to you at this time is, could you come back a little later? It’s just not a great time right now. We’re just not totally feeling ready to meet. We still trying to work some stuff out of the species, or humanity is in a bit of an awkward phase right now, embarrassing really. embarrassing. That’s the word. Thank you. Yeah, it’s embarrassing.

Speaker 16:

So maybe, I don’t know, we’re going to come back in about 500 years. Something like that. Actually, according to my projections, we’re going to need at least 1000 years. Okay. You know what? Let’s make it 1000. Let’s call it a cool thao. Okay. Then we’ll see you then. [inaudible 00:52:02]. Yeah. Hey, listen. You know, there’s just no point in getting in a new relationship if you still got your own stuff to work on. 100%. Anyway. Who wants to go for drinks, Nico? All right [inaudible 00:52:11]. Yeah. What a relief. I wasn’t into it either, but you always think you’re the one that’s messed up. Just self improvement takes time. That was so impressive. I really appreciated that honesty. Well, I don’t know what you would like to get home and just put my technicals up. I’m really hungry. At least we got our steps in. I feel really good.

Elvira Kurt:

So I do also know with these girls that they are allowed per season or per episode very few of these high concept, right? Because it starts to spin out of control, like all of the different aspects that are brought into it. So it is, that’s clear that this was this bigger, higher concept, but a very simple idea of the joke I can see it being pitched in the room. It’s like, “Yeah, so we meet aliens. It’s a bad time. And it’s a relationship thing.” Like it’s all those things together, but then you get the stuff that doesn’t have any of that in it. How do you turn it into this?

Marianna Khoury:

This one was exciting because normally a lot of those sketches are really fast paced and this had like a slow tension build. And I think I’ve found the soundtrack and the sound design before even fully doing the assembly. So yeah, a lot of the pacing is based off of that. I don’t normally do that.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. Tell me more about that. And watching it, did you think, “Oh, I don’t know what to do. Let’s start with the music.” Do you know what I mean? Or immediately you watched it and you were like, “I need the music first.”

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah. I think just to feel the space, we didn’t have the VFX of that glowing orb thing in the back yet. So the sound helped just feel like we were in that world and believe that we were there and it really helps it’s the slow long walk up so we can break the tension and reveal the joke.

Elvira Kurt:

Right. And do you… In the way that Jonathan said, like you have the movie reference already that music, was this like, “It’s going to be like Stranger Things or Arrival, do you know? And you start thinking of that.

Marianna Khoury:

Arrival soundtrack-wise I was looking for music that sounded “wahhhhh”

Elvira Kurt:

And so you lay that down first and then does it suddenly help? Oh, with this tension means this is where I’ve got to use a shot where there’s zooming in a little bit.

Marianna Khoury:

Yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

I don’t want to tell you.

Marianna Khoury:

I don’t know if this is a pretty simple one. It was really [crosstalk 00:54:34]-

Elvira Kurt:

Oh, is it? Anybody can do it. Why are we even here??

Marianna Khoury:

The sound and music were the biggest part of this one for me.

Elvira Kurt:

All right. Okay. So with that, the sound and music, I mean, what I love about this clip that we’re going back to you, James, it’s another Schitt’s Creek. It’s the town sign. It’s sweet. Like the visuals are all there. So then you have… Again with the sound is that it’s consistent you have a library just of Schitt’s Creek music. Do you know what I mean? When does that enter for you?

James Bredin:

There’s very little score. Yeah, they’ve very little music in that show at all.

Elvira Kurt:

So you can’t hide in a way, right? Like, and then it’s all the comedy out there?

James Bredin:

Yeah. And it’s a deliberate choice obviously.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah, for sure.

James Bredin:

And it’s just little sweetening here and there because they want everything else to be strong. And it’s just a matter of like little-

Elvira Kurt:

Well-placed.

James Bredin:

… yeah.

Elvira Kurt:

And again, this is something that your many years has taught you when it needs something?

James Bredin:

Well, I’d like to say that, but it’s generally there’s no music, unless there’s some source thing in a cafe or a dance or something, there’s a party it’s cut without any music at all. And they may add like very little ever.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. So town sign then… Again, it’s very shot heavy. I feel like it as when we see it or if people know [crosstalk 00:56:06].

James Bredin:

Yeah. it’s sort of more conventional directing. Cut it like you would cut any dramatic scene. It’s a-

Elvira Kurt:

Tell me more about that. Where’s the overlap between comedy and drama?

James Bredin:

… it’s the difference in the writing. This could be a completely straight scene of them wanting to repaint the sign and okay, “We’ll just repaint it.” Not funny at all. And so there’s nothing really in the directing that is specifically comedic. The timing is when you want to go from the two guys to over the shoulder of the sign. And that was sort of the challenge of this scene is when to most effectively use the actual picture.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay, excellent. So then let’s watch the clip and then come back to this because that is… Again, I’m trying to… What is it about comedy that makes it so specialized? And again, that not everyone can do where that it takes a lot longer to learn how to do well, then say film editing, which has you say it could be the script or whatever. And then it’s not just the fact that Schitt’s Creek is called a comedy show that that suddenly the editing is going to be done in a certain way that elicits comedy, it’s more than that. And so let’s see if we can understand more about what you mean after we’ve seen the clip.

 

[Clip plays]

James Bredin:

Lots of music in that.

Elvira Kurt:

Well, that was meant to get us through there. Thanks for bringing that back. But I can see that the well-placed shot of going back, that is everything that tips into comedy constantly.

James Bredin:

Yeah. That’s sort of the comedy. The biggest technical challenge of that scene was for Walt the colorist at Red Lab, because that sky was changing by the second and the lighting in TV shot is different and you would not know by doing that, but that put a lot of work into that. And there was a lot of-

Jonathan Eagan:

how did he change the sign? What happens to the sign?

James Bredin:

He sticks up another sign on top that says, “Don’t worry. It’s his sister.”

Elvira Kurt:

Roland fixed it for you. Jonathan quickly set us up.

Jonathan Eagan:

Okay. I chose this clip just because it was actually a kind of a challenge, also another really long scene that we had to make tighter and make choices. There’s actually a whole bunch of stuff going on. There’s some VFX of stitching together, three different wide shots to make one wide shot work for continuity. There’s great ad-libs from Katherine, who is unbelievable in that respect, especially when she’s writing, directing, showrunning, acting all at the same time. It’s pretty remarkable. And we can speak to it after the fact.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. Cool. All right. Let’s get to it.

 

[Clip plays]

Jonathan Eagan:

So, yeah, that’s the first scene of season three. At the end of season two, she catches her husband cheating on her with her best friend’s nanny. He doesn’t know that she’s seen it. And then she goes home and discovered she’s pregnant. And then she decides to have the baby that’s the reveal of that. So it was really interesting scene, because like the way it was initially set up, it was a lot longer. Val who’s tremendous, the class leader, she had a whole bit about how those photos behind her were like, “These babies are from my vagina.” And like all this really great stuff that was so good, but it was just too long a scene and we had to make choices. And so ultimately it came down to story choices and there was also a means of getting into the scene initially the plan so that we reveal Katherine is pregnant.

Jonathan Eagan:

Whereas now you sort of see it right away and there’s a lot going on that scene. Yeah, so one of those wides were bowels there and the two of them are in the foreground, but we had all kinds of continuity issues. We got into this situation on Workin’ Moms where I kind of got away with murder because Adam at Red Lab, the online editor was right next door to me. And he was really fantastic at like stitching together shots in the online and saving us, having to do it in via fax. It still costs money, but a lot less money. And like when I found out that that was the case, they let me do it like 45 times. So it was like a David Fincher movie a lot of the time. We were combining takes. And if the continuity wasn’t right, I would just dupe the same shot and combine the takes.

Jonathan Eagan:

And then Adam would take care of it. And then eventually they were like, “John, you have to stop doing that. It’s costing too much money.” But that was an example of it. We really needed it to make the scene work. We had like the women on the left were one shot. Val was another, they were third. And we really couldn’t make that pivotal moment work without. And then the whole Canary bit. I’m pretty sure that was an ad-lib if I remember correctly, but it just brings up… So what Katherine does often, and a lot of comedies do this is, Katherine will be… She’s head writer and the showrunner. She’s always on set. She directs many episodes. She directed this one. So she’s in the scene, on camera directing the scene and also the showrunner. So at times there’s no qualms on that show about her saying, “Let me do that again.”

Jonathan Eagan:

And she’ll start if it’s her coverage or she’ll say to someone, if it’s their coverage or she’ll say, “Give me that again,” or, “Just do that again.” She’ll just stop the scene… Rather than stop and cut and reset, she’ll stop the scene and she’ll say, “Give me it this way.” She’ll run off four or five different options right there and then, and then they’ll move on in the take. And it’s terrific. You just know exactly where it is and you can find it. So she did a bunch of different versions of the canary stuff and like the poop stuff. And we just had a host of really great options and they just had fun with it. They riffed for two minutes and then moved on and then we had a plethora of really great stuff to use, and we landed with that on that.

Elvira Kurt:

So you cheat and she made you look good. That’s the takeaway?

Jonathan Eagan:

That’s right.

Elvira Kurt:

Okay. That’s good to know for the future, so you can always have the guy next door, cost you money. And then somebody who takes care of all the shots, but what a luxury for you. Yeah, that’s great, lots to play with.

Jonathan Eagan:

Because they come to trust you. They let you get away with that stuff.

Elvira Kurt:

You’re right.

Jonathan Eagan:

There’s a moral to that story.

Elvira Kurt:

There’s a moral. Thank you for pointing it out. Did you want to say something Marianna?

Marianna Khoury:

They love doing that. I started working on Workin’ Moms this year and-

Jonathan Eagan:

Cool.

Marianna Khoury:

… it’s their favorite thing to do now [crosstalk 01:04:48] there’s this cool thing, Jonathan taught me.

Elvira Kurt:

Amazing. You’re a legend. Amazing. Now what I love on any kind of comedy when it gets authentic. So this storyline as you said you deferred a lot of the editing to serve the story, even though there was this other great extraneous stuff. and that you have to… What makes the funny funnier is when you have the contrast of the hardness of the truth. I cheated.

Jonathan Eagan:

Yeah, sure.

Elvira Kurt:

There’s pregnancy that she’s got to deal with. I’m using this as a segue to the final clip, which is the Unfounded, easily the most difficult, right? And I would say that having been in the writer’s room, there was a lot on Baroness that you would want to sort of tap into the zeitgeist, and then realize we actually were not smart enough to do this in a way that it serves the comedy and makes the point. And I think this is an exception. This had to have a warning before the actual scene. Is there anything else you want to say before we set it up?

Marianna Khoury:

No, let’s play it.

 

[Clip plays]

Elvira Kurt:

That was amazing, well done.

Marianna Khoury:

That’s a hard sketch to edit and it’s constantly balancing that line of being very angry and emotional and Aurora playing that character so grounded and keeping on us on that side of this, the hurt and anger and frustration. And then having the side with Meredith and Jen that keeps the comedy going and is getting out all of the information. And we found we would be holding on Aurora for a while and it would get too sad and it was too difficult to watch it. It didn’t feel like it was comedy anymore. So it was a while of working on that one and figuring out what the right balance was so that it felt right at the end.

Elvira Kurt:

Yeah. There was all of everything that you have been saying, all three of you have been saying all along, all coming into play in that one scene. And I think, unfortunately that is a good place to stop so that we can actually have some questions. so let’s get to it. Thank you guys. You’re so wise.

Jonathan Eagan:

Thank you very much.

Elvira Kurt:

From the house who has something to ask anybody? Yes, go ahead.

Audience:

So I have a question for Mariana about TallBoyz. So TallBoyz was originally stage based sketch comedy. So I was wondering having that context of like being originally based on stage work, how has that impacted your editing and what are the original kind of TallBoyz members were involved in kind of the timing or the editing and stuff?

Marianna Khoury:

Oh yeah. They were definitely involved. Yeah. It was pretty similar to Baroness in that you’re able… And Workin’ Moms, actually all the jobs I’ve had, usually the stars of the show are quite involved the whole way through which can be a good thing, but also sometimes they’re willing to cut things that they’re in and I’m like, “No, you can’t cut it. I love this part so much.” And it’s kind of your job as the editor to be that cheerleader for them a little bit. Yeah. TallBoyz was great. The big difference with that show is that the sketches did exist within an episode already. So, and they had a bit of a throughline in each act. So it was a bit more contained than how we work on Baroness.

Elvira Kurt:

So the one question was about a show we didn’t talk about. I cannot thank you enough. I literally could sit here for another three hours and just shoot the shit about this stuff. So deep is the bench of knowledge here. Let’s give it up for James and Marianna and Jonathan, thank you all so much and have an excellent keynote this afternoon. Take care.

Sarah Taylor:

Thanks for joining us today and a big thank you to our panelists and moderator. A special thanks goes to Jane MacRae, Maureen Grant, and the CCE Board for helping create EditCon 2020.

 

The main title sound design was created by Jane Tattersall. Additional ADR recording by Andrea Rusch. Original music provided by Chad Blain. This episode was mixed and mastered by Tony Bao. The CCE has been supporting Indspire – an organization that provides funding and scholarships to Indigenous post secondary students. We have a permanent portal on our website at cceditors.ca or you can donate directly at indspire.ca. The CCE is taking steps to build a more equitable ecosystem within our industry and we encourage our members to participate in a way they can.  

 

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and tell your friends to tune in. ?Til next time I’m your host Sarah Taylor.

 

[Outtro]

The CCE is a non-profit organization with the goal of bettering the art and science of picture editing. If you wish to become a CCE member please visit our website www.cceditors.ca. Join our great community of Canadian editors for more related info.

Canadian Film Centre Logo

Abonnez-vous là où vous écoutez vos balados

Que voulez-vous entendre sur L'art du montage?

Veuillez nous envoyer un courriel en mentionnant les sujets que vous aimeriez que nous abordions, ou les monteurs.euses dont vous aimeriez entendre parler, à :

Crédits

A special thanks goes to the following people for helping to create EditCon 2020

Jane MacRae

Maureen Grant

The Canadian Film Centre

the CCE board

Animé, produit et monté par

Sarah Taylor

Mixé et masterisé par

Tony Bao

Musique originale par

Chad Blain

fr_CAFR

stay connected

Subscribe to our mailing list to
receive updates, news and offers

Aller au contenu